Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

For Eastleigh, in the room of the Stephen David Wyatt Milligan Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Sydney Chapman.]

For Barking, in the room of the Josephine Richardson, deceased.

For Bradford, South, in the room of the George Robert Cryer Esquire, deceased.

For Dagenham, in the room of the Bryan Charles Gould Esquire. [Manor of Northstead]

For Newham, North-East, in the room of the Ronald Leighton Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Derek Foster.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Employment, Warwickshire

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the Warwickshire travel-to-work area currently; and what was the figure in 1990–91.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The latest available estimates are for September 1991, when there were 77,200 employees in the Warwick travel-to-work area.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Does she agree that one of the reasons why the Warwick and, indeed, Warwickshire figures are so good is the highly motivated, well-trained and adaptable work force? That applies especially to the constituency of Rugby and Kenilworth, as my hon. Friends will know. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Rugby and Kenilworth area is part of the midlands golden triangle and attracts a steady stream of new employers, creating new wealth and new employment? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is setting a rather bad pace for questions.

Miss Widdecombe: I have pleasure in confirming each one of my hon. Friend's statements. I also have pleasure in

confirming his comments on Rugby and Kenilworth, where unemployment has fallen by 12 per cent. over the past year.

Mr. Olner: Would it not have been a more honest question and a more honest answer if the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) had gone back to 1979 figures and if, in speaking up for the skills of the work force in the Coventry and Warwickshire area, he had mentioned that that area has been decimated by the Government's inability to have a manufacturing policy?

Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that, in this period of peace between our parties, the hon. Gentleman will wish me to give him good news on which he can then congratulate the Government. May I first point out that fair comparisons between work forces in employment should be from peak to peak or trough to trough and not from the one to the other? Secondly, may I give the hon. Gentleman the good news about the creation of new jobs by Jaguar, Peugeot and Land-Rover and the jobs that that has brought to the hon. Gentleman's region? In this new period of peace, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman congratulating us on that.

Employment Statistics

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has to improve the accuracy of employment statistics.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Government statisticians have taken a number of initiatives in recent years, but I am not aware of any new proposals.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister recall that at the last Employment Question Time, in answer to a similar question, I was told that the Minister agreed with paragraph 78 of the Select Committee's report of 10 February which concerned my question, as though every hon. Member could be expected to know every sentence of every paragraph of every Select Committee report? Will the Minister lead by example today and tell me whether he agrees with the final sentence of paragraph 112 of the same report?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question as well as I do.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that when there are more people unemployed there are more people on the register and when there are fewer people unemployed there are fewer people on the register, that that is an accurate reflection and that ours are by far the best figures in Europe?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The good news is that, however we measure unemployment, it is falling in Europe in only one other country apart from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has led the way because of the success of the supply side reforms that the Government have carried out, though not always with the support of Opposition Members.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister confirm that his Department's labour force survey shows that the total number of people who want a job is really 5 million if one uses a four-week test? In view of the difference between


that view and the official claimant counts which are published on a monthly basis, is the Minister prepared to co-operate fully with the inquiry set up by the president of the Royal Statistical Society and to agree, as Labour will, with the recommendations so that we can have a fair account of unemployment in this country rather than the fiddled figures that we get each month?

Mr. Forsyth: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should take that view. He will know that we measure unemployment in two ways. The first relates to people claiming benefit, which is the unemployment count. The other is the internationally recognised International Labour Organisation definition. Both figures are broadly the same. If the hon. Gentleman is going to talk about 5 million unemployed, I wonder whether that is official Opposition policy. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, are they likely to be announcing on their first day in office that there are 5 million unemployed? I think not. Other Opposition Members have accepted the ILO figures. It would be better to recognise that the figures are correct and to concentrate on the good news that unemployment is falling.

Training

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to develop further training opportunities for young people.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): The introduction of a new modern apprenticeship scheme and other measures.

Mr. Shepherd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that brief answer. Does he recognise that the concept of apprenticeships is often thought of as purely a matter for the mechanical and engineering sectors whereas there are many other sectors to which it could be applied? Will my right hon. Friend stress that fact in his development of the concept?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, I will. In fact, my hon. Friend's own training and enterprise council—Hawtec—is, among other training and enterprise councils, involved in the preparation of a prototype for the retail industry. There are a number of other prototyping arrangements for modern apprenticeships, including information technology, plumbing and marine engineering. Those sectors cover a range of new areas which have not hitherto had apprenticeships.

Mr. Alex Carlile: What fresh proposals does the Secretary of State have for the many new graduates who will emerge from university in a few weeks, young and eager to work?

Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that between 1990 and 1996 the number of individuals graduating from our universities will double. I also take pride in the fact that the rate of unemployment among graduates is half the national average. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates in Europe. There will be increasing opportunities for our graduates, who will share in the increasing growth in the economy.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision that equal opportunities for disabled people —and, most importantly, young disabled people—should be on the agenda for his meetings with training and

enterprise councils has been extensively welcomed? Is he further aware that the Employers Forum on Disability and the Confederation of British Industry are looking forward to consultations with him on policies to end discrimination in training and employment and that they want the Government to take the lead in updating the legislation in that area? Will he press forward with that process?

Mr. Hunt: I agree that the present quota system is not effective in removing discrimination against disabled people. We are introducing a new access to work scheme, but we must go further and introduce proposals to end discrimination where it affects disabled people.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that £103 million has been cut from the budget for adult and youth training? Given the Government's record of shoddy, low-cost training which has failed the nation in the past, why should we believe that the modern apprenticeships will be any different?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is about the only person to have voiced that view. I have been overwhelmed with favourable responses to the new modern appren-ticeship scheme. In fact, the hon. Gentleman was quoting a significant underspend in youth training. The introduction of a new modern apprenticeship scheme and the credits that accompany it, together with a budget of £1.25 billion over the next three years, means that we have the potential to fill the skills gap in the economy at the much-needed technician, craft and supervisory levels.

Mr. Brandreth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are currently spending about £2.8 billion per year on training and enterprise—two and a half times the amount spent in 1979 in real terms? Is that not one reason why last year some 1.4 million people were able to return to work, 24 per cent. of whom had been unemployed for more than six months?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend quotes a number of very important statistics. We are spending much more now in real terms than was spent under the Labour Government in 1979. The important thing is to ensure that that spending is properly targeted. That is why we are introducing new measures which I believe are capturing the support of a wide cross-section of the community. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will rethink his position.

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of youth training and training for work trainees found work on completion of their courses at the latest date for which figures are available.

Miss Widdecombe: Sixty-six per cent. of youth training and 36 per cent. of training for work trainees were in employment after completing their training.

Mr. Barnes: Why do so many young people go straight from inadequate training courses to the dole without decent qualifications or credits? Should there not be investment in skills training, together with temporary employment subsidies to promote the creation of jobs? It is not only the young people who suffer—the whole economy suffers by not being able to use their talents.

Miss Widdecombe: Some 66 per cent. of those who complete youth training gain a qualification or a credit. It


does not follow that those who do not do so necessarily go into unemployment. Some go on to further training and others to further education. Those facts must be remembered. On the hon. Gentleman's point about spending on youth training, it is worth spelling out that the forthcoming budget actually includes a higher spend than currently, despite the fact that larger numbers of young people stay on at school.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the east midlands region unemployment is falling and vacancies are increasing, bringing real hope to young people looking for jobs? Is she aware that in the Southern Derbyshire training and enterprise council area, which covers my constituency of Erewash, young people eligible for youth training schemes are getting a place without waiting?

Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to confirm my hon. Friend's latter point. Not only is it true in her constituency; it is now true in the vast majority of TEC areas. The number waiting more than eight weeks for a YT place has dropped from just under 5,000 last year to 138.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the problem questionable certification? I have yet another falsified national vocational qualifications certificate fraudulently produced by JHP Training. May we now have the National Audit Office independent inquiry for which I have repeatedly called and to which I have offered to provide evidence, as against the in-house inquiry that the hon. Lady wants to set up when clearly her own Department has been totally discredited?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question because he came to see me yesterday and I explained it to him then. I explained clearly to him yesterday that it is the view of the National Audit Office that it is appropriate for us to conduct an internal inquiry. That inquiry would be greatly assisted if the hon. Gentleman would make the evidence available to us, as he said in an early-day motion that he would.

Modern Apprenticeship Scheme

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from industry and trade unions in support of the proposed modern apprenticeship scheme.

Mr. David Hunt: Many messages of support.

Mr. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in his discussions with the trade unions they have indicated that their demand for a minimum wage would not extend to this scheme if it were implemented? Does that not show that the trade unions know that a minimum wage would destroy jobs in the way that the trade union movement destroyed apprenticeships in the 1960s and 1970s, and that the minimum wage, as the policy of the Labour party, should best be dropped altogether?

Mr. Hunt: There is an atmosphere of lack of enthusiasm for any proposals for a statutory minimum wage, even extending to our colleagues on the Labour Benches, who have understood that such an idea would not be popular at present. I do not believe that it would be popular because it would strike at the heart of a scheme

such as the new modern apprenticeship scheme. Moreover, in the past 15 years young people's earnings have increased in real terms right across the spectrum.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: In the many messages that the Secretary of State has received from employers, what exactly has the Engineering Employers Federation said to him about the new modern apprenticeship scheme? When we spoke to the EEF the other day, it was markedly lukewarm, feeling that we were probably going down the road towards yet another underfunded gimmick. What exactly is the view of the Engineering Employers Federation to the proposed new apprenticeship scheme?

Mr. Hunt: When I met the EEF on Monday, its view was very positive. I hope that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not widely held in the EEF. It is now very much up to employers to develop the scheme. We have not laid down a statutory Government scheme: we have asked employers to come forward with prototypes that they believe will be successful in delivering at NVQ level 3—equivalent to two A-Levels—the skills that they believe are necessary in their industries. In my experience, the engineering industry is one of the most important sectors behind the new modern apprenticeship scheme so far.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of industry is enthusiastic about the scheme, believing that the only way forward to provide the skilled craftspeople of the future is through apprenticeship schemes? Is he aware of the importance of electrical skills to the film industry, for example? An example of that industry's excellence is the lighting provided at the Palace of Westminster for the state opening of Parliament.

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One of the prototypes for the new modern apprenticeship scheme is coming from the electrical installation engineering sector and I am delighted about that.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the result of the Government's scrapping of the 20 statutory training boards and their statutory levies was a reduction of more than 150,000 apprenticeships? Industry did not invest in apprentices. Has not the time arrived to adopt the principle of a statutory training levy? Has not the problem with training in Britain been the lack of adequate finances to produce the skills required, as industry does not do this voluntarily?

Mr. Hunt: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics he will recognise that one good feature of a pretty tough recession has been the way in which expenditure on training by employers has held up extremely well. Employers now invest some £20,000 million on training. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a particular problem—although I disagree with him about its causes—in filling the much-needed skills level at NVQ level 3 through a new modern apprenticeship system. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have his thoughts about how the new prototypes can be developed, since I am open to argument as to how best the scheme can be taken forward.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the enormous increase in spending on academic training through the Department for Education, the balance


must be redressed by putting more money into training for work, particularly in counties such as Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset, where the council has slashed the discretionary grant for people going on to schemes which are job related?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like to see a substantial increase in workplace training. We must deliver opportunities to young people leaving school not just to go down the traditional academic route, but to see exciting opportunities in the new modern apprenticeship scheme. I very much hope that there will be successful vocational training, particularly in specific new areas and in new industries, to deliver those much-needed skills in the future.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the changes in the number of men employed in each standard planning region since June 1979.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: With permission, Madam Speaker, I will arrange for the table of information requested to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the Minister could not see fit to give figures which have been given on previous occasions when I have been lucky enough to ask this question.
May I draw attention to the figures for Wales, which have prompted me to ask about the United Kingdom? There has been a reduction in the number of jobs for men in Wales from 618,000 to 583,000, including 53,000 part-time jobs. That is a reduction of more than 20 per cent. When does the Minister expect to get back to the figures for employment for men that we had when Labour was last in power?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman looks at his question, he will find that he asked for the figures for each region of the United Kingdom, not for the United Kingdom. He is right about Wales, but he could have pointed to East Anglia where employment figures have gone up. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and others would welcome the fact that employment is rising and that in Britain we have a higher percentage of our population in work than most other European countries.

Mr. Mans: In the context of the figures, does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is very good indeed in the north-west? Does that not show that this recovery, unlike previous ones, is manufacturing and export-led, rather than consumer and service-led?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to point out that in recent months unemployment has been falling in every region of the United Kingdom. That is good news, and it is because of the success of the Government's policies of getting inflation down and creating conditions in which business can thrive and prosper.

Following is the information:



Civilian work force in employment1


thousands




Male all


Standard regions
June 1979
December 1993
Change


South East
4,884
4,368
-516


East Anglia
485
511
+26


South West
1,053
1,118
+65


West Midlands
1,464
1,238
-226


East Midlands
1,012
927
-85


Yorkshire and Humberside
1,305
1,113
-192


North West
1,714
1,410
-304


North
807
661
-146


Wales
721
627
-95


Scotland
1,323
1,173
-150


Great Britain
14,769
13,147
-1,622


1 The civilian work force in employment comprises employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes. Figures are not seasonally adjusted.

Modern Apprenticeships

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be able to benefit from the new apprenticeship scheme in each of its first three years.

Mr. David Hunt: More than 40,000 a year.

Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news. Will modern apprenticeship scheme places be available in smaller firms such as Mechtric Engineering, which employs 20 highly skilled engineers, designers and technicians in Castle Point? Would apprenticeship places be appropriate in a company such as Mechtric, bearing in mind that this week it celebrates its silver jubilee, the award of its BS 5750 certificate and the fact that it exports the world-beating 7150 material testing machine?

Mr. Hunt: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mechtric Engineering on the trio of achievements that he set out. He is right that engineering is one of the key areas. I am delighted to say that I have already been made aware that there are advanced arrangements for prototypes not only in electrical installation engineering, but in engineering construction and manufacture and marine engineering. Many other sectors are already lining up to start the new modern apprenticeship scheme next year and I am delighted about that.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Secretary of State aware that President Clinton and his advisers are looking not to Britain as the model to follow, but to the Germans, because they believe that the German universal apprenticeship scheme will provide the necessary platform for a modern economy? What steps is he taking to link national vocational qualifications to a more universal apprenticeship scheme?

Mr. Hunt: On the first point, when I attended the recent jobs conference in Detroit I found considerable interest, not only on the part of the United States but on that of our German colleagues in G7, in our new modern apprenticeship scheme.
On the second point, we are linking the new modern apprenticeship scheme, as I said, to NVQ level 3 because


we believe that that is where the skills gap exists which we must fill. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of our plans for linking training much more to output and especially linking it much more to the opportunities that the new NVQ system offers to every member of the population.

Unemployment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the rate of unemployment has changed since January 1993.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Unemployment has fallen by 240,000 or 0.8 percentage points since January 1993.

Mr. Marshall: Can any other European country boast such a record? Is the rate of unemployment in Britain lower pr higher than the European average? Are not there more people at work in Britain than in Germany, France, Spain or Italy? Does not that record reflect on Government—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am empowered to ask the Minister to answer only one question. I hope that hon. Members will take that to heart. Perhaps the Secretary of State can have a stab at answering a couple of those questions—sorry, the Minister of State.

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will have to make do with me, but I can confirm that he has answered all his questions and has brought good news to the House. The record on jobs in Britain is very good indeed.

Mr. Skinner: Why on earth should anyone in Britain believe those figures when more than 500,000 young people on slave labour schemes are not counted, more than 500,000 women are not registered and more than 100,000 ex-miners are not registered for unemployment? In pit villages in Bolsover more than 50 per cent. are unemployed and that is true of every coalfield in the country. What a pack of lies.

Madam Speaker: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say it was "a pack of lies"?

Mr. Skinner: I was using the collective noun.

Mr. Forsyth: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an assessment of his own question. According to the internationally recognised definition by the International Labour Organisation—an organisation which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would support —Britain is leading the way in Europe with falling unemployment and in creating new employment opportunities, which I accept are required in communities that have been affected by the consequences of closures in the coal industry.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only does Britain have a higher proportion of people in work than any other country in Europe, but last year saw unemployment in the west midlands fall by no fewer than 73,000 people? Does my hon. Friend also agree that inward investment has protected some 76,000 jobs in the west midlands and that that inward investment would undoubtedly be jeopardised if we adopted the social chapter of which the Labour party is so fond?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to look to the future and to emphasise the importance of new jobs which come from inward investment. He also highlights the importance of having flexibility in the labour market which enables employers to respond to the needs of the marketplace in order to create future employment. That is why the Prime Minister's opt-out from the social chapter was so important in helping to create inward investment opportunities.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept that, according to his own labour force survey, another 2.2 million people are looking for work and available for work? If that information is true and he accepts it—giving a total of nearly 5 million unemployed—is that another example of, "If it's not hurting, it's not working"?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems to live by the code that one shoots the messenger when he brings good news, not bad news. The fact is that it is good news about employment. If the hon. Gentleman wants to claim that there are 5 million people unemployed, may we hear from the Opposition that they would accept that figure if they were in government? I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that, by any accepted criteria, the ILO figures are the figures which he should look to and which are consistent with those achieved by measuring the unemployment count.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fall in unemployment that he described is more than paralleled in the south-west region? Will he urge his right hon. Friends to continue to resist measures of regulation, taxation burdens and political correctness which, contrary to the advice of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will damage job creation?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend—in fact, about 250,000 extra jobs have been created in the south-west in the past 10 years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative and the attempt to reduce the burden on businesses from red tape and regulations. It is undoubtedly true that the jobs of the future will come from small and medium-sized enterprises which must be encouraged to thrive and prosper.

Senior Managers

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of senior managers were women in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

Miss Widdecombe: The labour force survey shows that, in the autumn of 1993, 31 per cent. of corporate managers or administrators were women. The equivalent figures for 1991 and 1992 were 29 per cent. and 31 per cent.

Mrs. Campbell: Has the Minister taken the time to study the report entitled "The Rising Tide" published by the Office of Science and Technology? Is she aware that one of the key recommendations of the report asks Government Departments to set a target that women will fill at least 25 per cent. of public appointments and senior manager positions by the year 2000?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and because of the prime ministerial initiative announced in 1991 there has already been a rise from 23 per cent. to 28 per cent. of women in public appointments. Because of the initiative of Opportunity 2000, 25 per cent. of the work force are now covered by employers who are committed to those objectives.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important senior manager's post that any woman can aspire to is to run her home effectively and well, particularly where children are involved, because that is of enormous benefit to the nation?

Miss Widdecombe: It is extremely important that we value properly those women who choose to run homes. That is why there are special exemptions for women returners in our training programmes; that is why my right hon. Friend introduced accredited prior learning and applied it also to those on career breaks; and that is why we have tried to make that choice available as widely as possible.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree, however, that under the Government of whom she is a member, women are still treated as second-class workers and that only in Ireland and Luxembourg, in the European Union, are women's average earnings lower, as a proportion of men's, than in Britain?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady completely misunderstands the position of women in this country. Under the Government, there has been an increase in the number of women in the work force. If the hon. Lady wants European comparisons, I am delighted to give them to her. We have the second greatest proportion of women in work in the European Union. We are also the only country in which female unemployment is less than that of men. The hon. Lady should be congratulating the Government and it is the tone of her question which sorely tempts me to be less moderate than I am generally trying to be today.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if 31 per cent. of all senior managers are women, presumably the rest of them are men? In those circumstances, will she also confirm that the criteria of qualification for the job count most, rather than the attempt to get sexual equality into every aspect of our business life?

Miss Widdecombe: It can scarcely be doubted that, if 31 per cent. are women, the rest must be men. I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I would, however, point him to the initiative, "Fair Play for Women", and to what that has already achieved in Wales and what we expect it to achieve now that we have launched it in England, in terms of making women more valued in the workplace, better qualified, better trained and giving them more opportunities generally. That has remained a consistent objective of the Government.

Trade Unions

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the TUC to discuss matters relating to the right to belong to trade unions.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I met Mr. John Monks on 29 November last year.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that, by banning trade unions at GCHQ, the Government are denying those workers their democratic right of freedom of association? Will he try to understand that a Government who deny democratic rights to their citizens, and who arm dictators around the world who genuinely threaten this country's security, are in no position to lecture GCHQ trade unionists about disloyalty or national security?

Mr. Forsyth: Workers at GCHQ are able to join a staff association, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is the Conservative Government who have given everyone the right to join a trade union of their choice—something which Opposition Members have opposed.

Mr. Jenkin: At his meeting with Mr. John Monks, did my hon. Friend obtain an explanation as to which unions oppose a national minimum wage?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Forsyth: Oddly enough, that was not a subject for conversation, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that there are some people in the trade union movement whose concern for jobs makes them oppose a minimum wage, unlike some Opposition Members, whose concern for dogma perhaps gives jobs second priority.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that in a decent democratic country, workers should have the right to be represented by the unions of their choice?

Mr. Forsyth: This is a decent democratic country. It is the Conservative Government who have given workers the right to join a trade union of their choice, and it is the Conservative Government who got rid of the wicked closed shop legislation, which prevented people from working when they did not wish to join a trade union.

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effects of trade union legislation since 1979.

Mr. David Hunt: The legislation has transformed industrial relations.

Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, freed from trade union shackles, British workers now produce more and compete better than many of our overseas counterparts? Is not it true that, in the 1990s, as a result of Conservative trade union legislation, many American and Japanese companies, which would not have touched us with a bargepole in the 1970s, bring to the country new investment, new factories and new jobs?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a stark set of facts that productivity growth in the UK is higher today and was higher in the 1980s than productivity growth in Japan and that the UK strike rate is now lower than in Germany. So not only is the United Kingdom leading Europe through recovery into a sustained period of non-inflationary growth, but it is leading the way in putting harmony in place of strife and increasing the growth in productivity.

Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State give the House the answer which the Minister did not give to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Does he believe that, in a democratic society, an employee has the right to be represented at work by the union of his or her choice?

Mr. Hunt: We have just answered the point by making it clear that we believe in a free democratic society. Employers should not be compelled to accept a negotiator who may not necessarily be the representative of the work force. It is very much up to trade unions to earn an increasing membership by appealing to their members and by selling their services to them. I take great pride in the fact that days lost through industrial action are now 20 times fewer than the average in the 1970s.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Prime Minister agree to scrap the Child Support Agency in its present form and go back to the drawing board to produce a more efficient and fair method of supporting children of lone parents?

The Prime Minister: I think that children are entitled to be supported by their own parents and that taxpayers should help only to the extent that parents do not have the means to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in February we made some changes to the Child Support Agency and I repeat what I have said to the House on previous occasions: we shall continue to keep it under review and, if further changes are necessary, we shall make them.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week's decision by the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill has caused immense dismay among my constituents in Aylesbury and among many other people in London and south-east England? Will he assure the House that the Government will look urgently at other ways in which that project might be taken forward?

The Prime Minister: I share the disappointment that the Select Committee has rejected the Crossrail Bill. We have consistently made clear our commitment to the project and I am pleased to tell the House that that commitment remains. The promoters are now urgently considering the position and we are in discussion with them on how to proceed.

Mrs. Beckett: When does the Prime Minister expect to publish the Department of Transport's report on the technical and legal aspects of fitting seat belts in minibuses and coaches, especially in view of the fact that the Government have been saying since January that that research would be published "in a few weeks' time"?

The Prime Minister: I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it. The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly.

Mrs. Beckett: Could I urge the Prime Minister to make that very shortly indeed, as the report has been in preparation for some time and safety organisations, coach operators and the general public have been calling for a measure along those lines for a considerable time?

The Prime Minister: We are looking at a range of things. The Department of Transport has been conducting a full review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches. We also wish to take into account the circumstances of the minibus accident last Sunday and the vehicles in that respect are still being examined by the Vehicle Inspectorate. It is right that we examine all the circumstances. As soon as we are ready, we shall bring forward our conclusions.

Mrs. Beckett: Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that when the Government have looked at this report they will be prepared to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency? I believe that the amendment paper contains an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) which might make possible the adoption of a decision in principle as early as tomorrow night. I repeat the offer of all-party talks which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as long ago as December, with a view to ironing out the difficulties regarding such legislation. I assure the Prime Minister that, subject to proper scrutiny, the Opposition would certainly give any legislation a speedy passage.

The Prime Minister: We wish to conclude our examination of this matter before deciding what is the right way to proceed. Increasingly a number of minibus manufacturers are fitting seat belts as a matter of course. That is a decision for them. It is also open to potential customers, when making coach or minibus bookings, to ask whether belts are fitted. I do not wish to give any indication of the outcome of the review until we have had time to study the conclusions and to reach a decision based on all the evidence that is available.

Mr. Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while regretting the need for such a course, the House will back the decision of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to increase the number of armed response units?

The Prime Minister: There is a feeling—in the House and across the country, I suspect—that people certainly do not wish the police to be armed as a matter of course. This is a very limited measure and I believe that it is justifiable. Of course, the number of armed policemen will be very small—about 50. These officers are highly trained in the use of firearms and they will be called only to incidents where firearms might be needed.

Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he had made to the Government of Pakistan to secure the release of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali from prison in Mirpur.

The Prime Minister: Although Mr. Ali is not a British citizen, our high commissioner in Islamabad has followed this matter closely on a humanitarian basis. We are


concerned that Mr. Ali's case keeps being adjourned. Officials at the Foreign Office are arranging to meet his son to discuss future courses of action.

Mr. Madden: I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of Mr. Ali's wife and family, for his past efforts on this man's behalf. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Ali has been held without proper trial for the past four years. I urge him to make further representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, who will be visiting Britain and calling at the House of Commons later this week.

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in the matter. So far, we have pursued it on a humanitarian basis. Given the length of time that Mr. Ali has been detained without trial, I shall consider raising his case again with the Pakistani authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that as Mr. Ali is not a British national we cannot assist specifically with consular advice. However, on a humanitarian basis, it is right that we should again raise with the Pakistani authorities the question of his lengthy detention without trial.

Engagements

Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the breast cancer lobby that is taking place at the House of Commons today? Did he have time to read the report on the subject in The Daily Telegraph today? Will he draw its importance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health?

The Prime Minister: I think my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's question. I am very pleased that the Macmillan Fund for Cancer Relief survey shows that there was a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment that women had received from the national health service. That was particularly marked among those who had received treatment more recently. I understand that the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales will publish tomorrow their consultative report on the provision of cancer services. I believe that it will have far-reaching consequences for the services provided for patients with cancer.

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grocott: Is not it salutary for the international community to note that in Rwanda more people have been killed in the past six weeks—one estimate puts the figure at 500,000—than were killed in the former Yugoslavia in the whole of the past three years? Is not it vital that the United Nations, the European Community and other international agencies ensure that the time, energy and effort that they devote to the solution of crises worldwide are at least in some way proportionate to the degree of suffering on the ground?

The Prime Minister: There are many people who feel as the hon. Gentleman clearly does about the dreadful bloodshed in Rwanda. It is clearly a bitter civil war and some of the atrocities that have taken place are unforgivable by any rational judgment. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted resolutions calling for a ceasefire. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to assist where practicable. The mandate is primarily humanitarian, contributing to the security and the protection of refugees and civilians at risk. The resolution also imposes an arms embargo.

Mr. Bowden: As we approach the 50th anniversary of D-day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the war widows whose husbands made the supreme sacrifice, to see whether there is some way in which he can ensure that additional recognition is given to that sacrifice this year by some form of financial payment?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for pensioners generally, and war widows in particular, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have heard what he has to say. My hon. Friend will agree that, over the years, we have taken great care to recognise the remarkable sacrifice made by many widows whose husbands were killed in the war and most people will consider it right of us to have done so.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: If the economy is on the mend, as the Prime Minister keeps claiming, instead of increasing VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. in April, will he consider getting rid of it altogether?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that many people doubt that the economy is on the mend. All the indicators show that that is certainly the case. Not every single indicator in the months ahead may be as good as we would wish, but the overall trend is undoubted. One of the reasons why the economy is moving ahead is that we have taken the tax measures necessary to improve our public finances.

Economy

Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the prospects for economic growth and inflation in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: The prospects for the economy are extremely good—[Interruption.]—and not only that, this year the United Kingdom is set to be the fastest-growing major European economy for the second year running. Underlying inflation is under control, at its lowest for 25 years and well within its target range. I shall spare Opposition Members all the rest that it says here.

Mr. Luff: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the hardest lessons we have to relearn as a country is that British manufacturing industry can prosper only if it is competitive? Against that background, will he join me in welcoming yesterday's news that factory gate inflation is at a low level not seen in Britain for a generation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about competitiveness. The more competitive we are, the more we will sell and the more jobs we will be able to create in this country. The figures on factory gate prices are extremely good—better than we have seen for many years. One of the reasons why we are competitive and will remain so is that we have no intention of saddling our companies with the social on-costs that so many in Europe have now undertaken and which so many in the House would be prepared to undertake.

Mr. Purchase: Will the Prime Minister contrast the sweeping victories of many Labour groups in the local elections recently—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully because the hon. Gentleman's question has to be tied to the question on the Order Paper on prospects for economic growth and inflation.

Mr. Purchase: Indeed, Madam Speaker. Will the Prime Minister compare that record with the awful record of the Black Country development corporation on economic development in the black country? In the light of that comparison, would he care to give back to Labour authorities the money taken from them for that economic development?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the Black Country

development corporation. It is clear that right across the black country and the country as a whole the prospects for manufacturing industry and other industries are rapidly improving. That is self-evident in the growth seen in the past 12 months, the growth that we are seeing now and the growth that we can safely anticipate in the future.

Engagements

Mr. Richards: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sharpening the skills of our schoolchildren will improve the competitive edge of the economy in the future? Does he welcome the recently announced statistics showing that more of our schoolchildren are staying on at school than ever before?

The Prime Minister: I do welcome that, just as I welcome the fact that the number of people who are unemployed is falling and has been consistently for 15 months. Some years ago, about one in eight of young people went on to further education; that figure is now one in three. Some 70 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are now in full-time education. I am sure that that trend is right and I thoroughly welcome it.

Merchant Shipping (Donaldson Report)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping. The report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", is published today, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House and are available in the Vote Office.
The marine accident investigation branch has already reported on the loss of the Braer, and we also look forward to receiving very shortly the report of Professor Ritchie's steering group on the assessment of its ecological effects. I asked Lord Donaldson to undertake a wide-ranging inquiry following that incident—not confined to the Braer —including considering what steps could be taken to minimise the risk of any similar incident and to reduce the risk of pollution at sea.
The House will wish to join me in warmly thanking Lord Donaldson, his colleagues Professor Alasdair McIntyre and John Rendle, and all those involved with the inquiry for the diligence, high quality and comprehensive nature of their work. Many of the solutions that the inquiry has recommended can be achieved effectively only by international action. I welcome Lord Donaldson's agreement to present the report to the International Maritime Organisation on Friday.
The Government accept the thrust of Lord Donaldson's recommendations, many of which are in line with the approach and actions that the Government have been pursuing in recent years. I shall now be considering them in detail. To assist in this, the Government will welcome comments from those interested. I shall make further reports to the House in due course on the progress made in implementing individual recommendations.
Lord Donaldson has emphasised the importance of effective port state control. As long as some flag states do not enforce the agreed international standards on their ships, our marine surveyors will ensure effective inspections of foreign-flagged ships visiting our ports; we already inspect one in three. But Lord Donaldson considers that we should improve targeting in order to provide as effective a deterrent as possible to the sub-standard ship. The owner or operator of a sub-standard ship must know that his ship is certain to be inspected and that if it is found to be defective it will be detained.
To be fully effective, port state control has to operate on an international regional basis. That is particularly important for the United Kingdom as many of the ships passing our coasts do not call at our ports. We have already taken action to increase European co-operation on port state control and we shall pursue Lord Donaldson's further recommendations with our partners in Europe. We shall also continue to work in the International Maritime Organisation to improve the performance of flag states.
If we are to eliminate substandard ships, an effective exchange of information is essential, although the inquiry recognises some of the difficulties in obtaining commercially sensitive information. Nevertheless, I have decided that, in future, we will publish monthly the full details of the ships that we detain, their defects, their flags, their owners and those who operate or certify them. Such

public exposure will mean that unsafe operators and ineffective flag states will not be able to hide their identities.
The report correctly identifies the importance of crew training and standards; some 80 per cent. of marine accidents result directly from human error. Along with a number of like-minded states, we persuaded the IMO to use an accelerated procedure to enhance the standards and competence of the world's seafarers. The recommendations in the report will act as a further impetus to the necessary amendment next year by the IMO of the convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping. Along with our partners in Europe, we are paying particular attention to crew competence during port state control inspections.
There must be adequate and accessible waste reception facilities in port if waste disposal by ships at sea is to be controlled or reduced. We view with concern the report's findings on the adequacy of existing facilities at UK ports. I have asked the Marine Safety Agency to undertake an urgent survey of the facilities that are available and their use. In parallel with that survey, I will discuss with port, shipping and waste disposal authority representatives the inquiry's recommendations on the future provision, funding and certification of waste reception facilities.
Immediately following the loss of the Braer, my Department, with the Chamber of Shipping, prepared proposals for additional voluntary routeing and reporting measures around our coast, including extended "areas to be avoided" around Orkney and Shetland. Those measures were adopted with commendable speed by the IMO. Lord Donaldson has endorsed the measures that we took, and proposes further action. We will take them forward in consultation with local and shipping interests.
Lord Donaldson recommends that marine environmental high-risk areas should be identified around our coasts to protect areas that combine the highest degree of environmental sensitivity and the greatest degree of risk from shipping. Entry by ships could be either restricted or prohibited. However, as the right of a coastal state to interfere with ships on innocent passage is restricted by international law, any prohibitions or restrictions will have to be submitted to the IMO for its endorsement.
We propose that Government Departments, in consultation with the statutory bodies that advise us on environmental and conservation matters, should identify possible marine environmental high-risk areas. Lord Donaldson envisages a limited number of marine environmental high-risk areas, because he believes that excessive numbers of such areas would devalue their effectiveness and put their international acceptance at risk. The Government agree.
Lord Donaldson also makes recommendations about reporting by ships. If the IMO's maritime safety committee decides that coastal states should be authorised to require all ships to report to it, we will propose locations where such mandatory reporting would be appropriate. Mandatory reporting by vessels in transit is also being discussed within the European Union.
Lord Donaldson recommends that the Government should consider the enhancement of salvage capacity around our coast, and in particular the early provision of three salvage tugs covering the Dover strait, the south-western approaches and north-west Scotland. The


inquiry considers how those tugs could be provided and funded, and discusses offsetting their costs by using them for other Government or commercial purposes.
I have instructed the Coastguard Agency to consider urgently the report's recommendation on the three tugs and to provide a detailed analysis of their likely costs and benefits. The agency will need to consider how the tugs could be funded in both the short and the long term, the appropriate role of the private sector, the scope for using them for other purposes and the possibility of co-operation with other states.
The inquiry has endorsed aerial spraying of dispersants, in appropriate circumstances, to combat oil pollution. Lord Donaldson's findings and those of the review of the testing, approval and use of oil dispersants by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taken into account in my Department's submission to the Public Accounts Committee following its request for a reappraisal of our aerial spraying policy. In the meantime, we will maintain our aerial spraying capability.
Last winter, serious problems were encountered with fish factory ships off the Shetland Islands. Such ships play an important role in providing a market for United Kingdom fish, but it is essential that they do so safely. Lord Donaldson has endorsed the steps that we have already taken to reduce the risk of any recurrence of last winter's problems, and has made recommendations for further action. We shall be considering those recommendations urgently so that we have appropriate measures in place before the klondyker fleet returns.
Lord Donaldson was requested to take into account the economic consequences of his recommendations. We are grateful to him for doing so. He supports the principle that the polluter, or potential polluter, should pay. The Government endorse that approach. He recognises that charges on shipping for port state control and other anti-pollution measures would best be levied on a north-west European basis, thus avoiding the potential distortions of trade that could result from their application in the United Kingdom alone. We shall take those recommendations forward in consultation with our European partners and with commercial interests.
In the time available, I have been able to touch only on the report's key points—particularly port state control, routeing, salvage and future funding. We warmly welcome the report, which will be regarded as a significant milestone, nationally and internationally, in achieving the aim of the report's title—"Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". I repeat my gratitude to Lord Donaldson and his colleagues for the excellent work that they have done.

Mr. Frank Dobson: We welcome Lord Donaldson's report, which is thorough, comprehensive and heavy on technical evidence. It requires detailed consideration and careful consultation, and, I believe, merits a full debate in due course. What is needed now, however, is new, comprehensive legislation covering the whole field of marine safety and pollution.
Lord Donaldson's report is an almost endless indictment of the failure of the Government and international bodies to prevent the loss of ships and seafarers' lives, and to protect Britain's shores from avoidable damage and pollution. The report shows that, by accident or design, ships discharge oil, chemicals,

explosives, garbage and micro-organisms into the seas around our shores. They poison fish, kill birds and foul our beaches.
The report shows that the system is a direct product of unregulated competition between ship owners who cut costs by sending out ships that are unseaworthy, with inadequate and badly trained crews, in the charge of officers of doubtful competence—sometimes incapable of communicating with other ships, the shore or, in some cases, even their own crews. In the crowded waters of the English channel and the North sea, dangerous practices remain lawful, and negligence goes unpunished because it is undetected.
Does the Secretary of State accept Lord Donaldson's view that, with so many irresponsible ship owners and operators, we cannot depend on the necessary action being taken by the states whose flags they fly? Action must be taken by the states whose ports they visit, and it must be taken now.
Britain, and the other states whose shores touch on those crowded waters of the English channel and the North sea, must make it clear to the International Maritime Organisation that we will no longer tolerate their endless delays. We are in a strong position: between us, the North seam states—Britain, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium and France—are responsible for more than a third of the world's trade. On our narrow seas, all the nations of the earth must come to trade, and they should be allowed to do so only on our terms, with safe ships with well-trained crews and responsible officers.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that what we need are tough new regulations, rigorously enforced by Britain, our European partners and international bodies? No longer must reputable ship owners in well-found ships with well-trained crews be put at a disadvantage and forced into cut-throat competition with ships that are cheap and nasty—ships that are cheap because they are nasty.
We welcome in particular Lord Donaldson's proposals for action to improve waste reception facilities and crew standards, to require ship routeing and reporting, to strengthen checks on vessels and to improve salvage arrangements. Does the Secretary of State accept that that will call for extra work to be done, and will he now therefore cancel the proposed cuts in the staff and budget of the Marine Safety Agency?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, without tough new regulations and the staff to enforce them, the hopes raised by the establishment of the Donaldson inquiry will not be fulfilled and accidents and pollution will continue? Will the Secretary of State accept my assurance of Labour's support for effective legislation, if he brings it before the House, to put things right?

Mr. MacGregor: Lord Donaldson's report is a good deal more balanced than the hon. Gentleman's observations on it at the beginning of his remarks, as right hon. and hon. Members will see when they read the report. It is not an endless indictment of the United Kingdom's failure to act. In fact, Lord Donaldson commented:
We believe that the United Kingdom's performance as a Flag State … compares very favourably with that of most other Flag States but there is no room for complacency".
That is precisely my position—I agree that there is no room for complacency. Ever since I have been Secretary of State for Transport, I have sought to take forward action at every


level to deal with sub-standard ships and sub-standard crews. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is where the real danger lies.
The hon. Gentleman must accept that the matter cannot be tackled by the United Kingdom or by UK legislation alone. As he knows, only a comparatively small number of proposals are for UK legislation—a tiny proportion of the total. The majority of the action must be taken either through the IMO—and there are many recommendations for that—or, since that is sometimes slow-moving and does not completely deal with the issue of sub-standard crews and sub-standard ships, in the European Union and in the Paris memorandum of understanding group. That is precisely what I have been doing for the past two years —urgently pursuing within the European Union that the Transport Council takes steps to deal with all those issues.
Three matters will come before the Transport Council at its meeting in June, and port state control—which, like Lord Donaldson, I regard as a key—will come before it shortly thereafter.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take every possible step to follow up the Donaldson report. After all, I asked him to examine the whole issue in the most comprehensive way, taking into account the international aspect. I will do so particularly within the European Union, because that is where we get effective action on port state control—as I showed in my statement. I will make sure that we do everything that we possibly can, but we must recognise that this is an international business and that we need the co-operation of those not only in the European Union but in the IMO.

Mr. David Harris: As president of the Sea Safety Group (United Kingdom), and as someone whose constituency unfortunately saw both the Penlee lifeboat disaster and the Torrey Canyon environmental tragedy, I warmly welcome Lord Donaldson's report and my right hon. Friend's reaction to it.
As to the designation of marine environmental high-risk areas, which will be particularly welcome to the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, I urge my right hon. Friend to go one step further and ensure that those areas have statutory backing and do not rely merely on voluntary controls. I also ask my right hon. Friend and other Ministers to take the lead in the International Maritime Organisation. It needs a political impetus to ensure that all those desirable steps are taken as quickly as possible on an international front.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that we are taking the lead, and have done so for some time, in the IMO with others. However, because I recognise that the IMO takes time, it is important to take action earlier within the European Union and the Paris memorandum of understanding group. I repeat, because it is important, that that is where can get effective action to deal through port state control not only with sub-standard ships and sub-standard crews but with the point made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which I have also made frequently. That will also help to deal with unfair competition from such ships and crews, which is every bit as bad as competition through unfair state aids. I assure my hon. Friend that I will certainly do that.
As to MEHRAs, as I believe they will come to be called, they do not require statutory backing at this stage. Lord Donaldson recommends that we identify and promulgate those routes but that if that does not lead to their effective observance we should consider through the IMO—and that is where it must be done—how to get sanctions to ensure compliance with MEHRA requirements.
My hon. Friend will notice that the inquiry recognised that the Isles of Scilly are both ecologically sensitive and at a busy shipping crossroads. The inquiry recommended that the Department of Transport should review the case for areas to be avoided or other means of enhanced protection and should consider the scope for setting up a voluntary system for the reporting of tankers similar to that in the Minch. I shall be following that up very shortly.

Mr. James Wallace: I warmly congratulate Lord Donaldson on producing a very comprehensive report, which, I am sure, will take a lot of digestion in the weeks and months ahead. Many of the points that he makes—he does not pull his punches—were identified by many of us before and it is regrettable that it took an incident such as the Braer to produce such a report. Nevertheless, it is important that we learn the lessons and take action at Government level, at European level and, indeed, at international level.
I endorse what the Secretary of State says about the need for a sense of urgency. For example, on the question of satellite tracking, which Lord Donaldson identifies as being important, between 1988 and 1993 there were only four meetings of the sub-committee. Will the Secretary of State say what more is being done to speed that up? Will there be more Department of Transport surveyors to undertake port state inspections? Is it true that there is to be a 30 per cent. efficiency reduction in staff and expenditure in the coastguard and in the Marine Safety Agency and, if so, how will that impact on the responsibilities which they will have to carry out to give meat and substance to implementing the recommendations?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general approach. He is right in saying that Lord Donaldson has done the job most comprehensively and that there is a great deal to be digested. In particular, Lord Donaldson has brought forward some very interesting ideas on port state control, which I am anxious to pursue in the European Union context because we have a draft Commission proposal coming forward on that. Lord Donaldson has been very imaginative in the way in which he has approached that matter and I am very attracted to it.
On the question of surveillance, Lord Donaldson has made a number of points. As the hon. Gentleman will see, Lord Donaldson has rejected the idea of radar all round our coasts and, in a good analysis, has put forward the reasons for that. He has especially placed emphasis on transponders, which, I believe, must be the only sure-fire way to move ahead—at least as sure-fire as we can make it. I shall therefore be anxious to pursue that as quickly as we can.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will resist the temptation to make long statements. I have to safeguard the remainder of this day's business. A number of hon.


Members hope to be called. They will not all be called unless the Secretary of State is asked direct questions and the House receives direct answers.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that one of the ways in which safety can be increased is to employ British officers and crews? Will he also give assurances to my constituents in Dover and Deal that the English channel will be a much safer place for shipping and for people whose homes are in towns alongside it as a result of the Government accepting the recommendations in the report?

Mr. MacGregor: If we can secure the action that I shall be seeking both at European and IMO level, undoubtedly the recommendations in the report, which follow up, as I have said, the approaches that we have already been making, they will greatly assist my hon. Friend's constituents in seeing that the Dover straits are a safer place for shipping. The report also makes specific recommendations about the Dover straits, which we shall be following up as well.
Of course, it is necessary for our ships to be competitive and flexible in their manning arrangements, but some of the policies that I have pursued recently, with assistance for the training of crews and so on, will certainly help to ensure that British crews play a prominent part.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: On the need to back up the voluntary arrangements with compulsory sanctions, a matter which has already been raised by the question asked by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), does the Secretary of State accept that the arrangement in the Minches is not working at present? The deep water route west of the Hebrides is not being followed and ships are going through the Minches. It would take only one of those ships to have an accident for there to be an environmental disaster.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that what was needed from him was not a cost-benefit analysis of the need for a tug on the north-west coast, but a decision to install a tug there to safeguard against a future disaster?

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, Lord Donaldson, as he does in many of the recommendations, urges that we consider the cost benefits first, and that is what I shall be doing. I have said that I intend to move ahead with that swiftly. I am asking the Coastguard Agency to do that first analysis.
The report acknowledges the strong local objections to the passage of oil tankers through the Minch. It concludes that large merchant ships of all types should use the deep water route to the west of Harris and Lewis as a matter of routine, but that they should retain the option of using the Minch when exceptional weather or other conditions make it safer for them to do so. The Government endorse that view and will pursue the inquiry's recommendations on monitoring traffic in the Minch. The inquiry also proposes that the deep water route should be extended and we will take that proposal forward.

Mr. Barry Field: Is not Great Britain a giant roundabout for most of the world's shipping? It is not our own house which needs to be put in order, but the traffic that passes our doorstep. After the great debate about traffic separation from Ushant past Cap de le Hague through the Dover strait, which most people now agree has worked well, why can we not have black-box technology

on ships, particularly on oil tankers, which want to use the channel and require them to give a sample of their cargo so that we can discover and prosecute the culprits when they pump out and cleanse their tanks at sea?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will find that Lord Donaldson makes some comments and recommendations in that area. However, my hon. Friend's first point was important. A great deal of shipping passes our coast—we have one of the longest coastlines in the world—which does not come to our ports. Therefore, there must be action at international level. That is why I place such strong emphasis on tightening port state control throughout our northern European waters.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do the Government look favourably on the proposals of the Greek shipowner, George Livanos, that there should be a register of all major accidents, the lessons to be drawn from them and the facts about them? Also, will there be an undertaking for at least a 10–year study of the benthic consequences of what happens to the ocean floor after an accident like this and how the fauna are affected?

Mr. MacGregor: If by "an accident like this" the hon. Gentleman means the Braer, he will know that the study into the ecological consequences produced an interim report and we expect the final report next month. That will certainly give us some guidance, and I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is important to collect information from inquiry reports such as that of the marine accident investigation branch and to use that in international action. That is what we do. We have already followed up all the MAIB recommendations on the Braer.

Mr. George Kynoch: I especially welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals with regard to tightening up in-port inspections with particular reference to co-operation and targeted co-operation between European Union states. However, how quickly does my right hon. Friend expect that targeted co-ordination to get under way?

Mr. MacGregor: I wish I could say "immediately", but in international matters it sometimes takes some time. However, the Commission report on port state control will come to the Transport Council in due course. That is the peg that we can use to take forward Lord Donaldson's recommendations. I have today sent a copy of Lord Donaldson's report to the Commissioner and to all my European colleagues. I shall be raising the subject with them—I have given them notice of this—at the Transport Council in June.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I remind the Secretary of State that some of the recommendations in the report are as important to seafarers and maritime communities as some of the recommendations in the Cullen report? Can we expect early legislation to implement those recommendations, particularly recommendation 23.111, which relates to fish factory ships and the problems and dangers that they cause? Only an amendment to section 4 of the Fisheries Act 1967 is required to bring those vessels up to standard. Surely a quick Bill is needed.

Mr. MacGregor: The House knows that I cannot commit the Government to legislation. That is a matter for


the usual way of working out what the Government's legislative programme should be. On the other hand, if I recollect correctly, the particular recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, while indicating that legislative change is ultimately desired, suggests that we can in the short term achieve the same objective through conditions attached to the licences for the klondykers. I will certainly be pursuing that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The owners of the Braer are members of Intertanko—the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners —to which I am parliamentary consultant. Does my right hon. Friend accept that international organisations such as Intertanko recognise that sub-standard tankers have to be rooted out? While measures such as local traffic schemes can improve matters, increase salvage and so on, what will really count in future is the speedy implementation of the International Maritime Organisation agreements, especially the Marpol agreements on improving tanker safety.
Does my right hon. Friend further accept that, while we all recognise the importance of collisions and other incidents, they must be put in perspective? Some 60 per cent. of world crude oil goes by sea and 98.98 per cent. of it arrives safely. Accidental discharge is less than operational discharge, which has declined by 85 per cent. over the past 20 years. Therefore, tanker owners are doing their best to provide safe, economic and environmentally—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have appealed for short questions. I will have to bring questions on the statement to a close unless hon. Members co-operate. A number of hon. Members have a direct interest in the statement and I want to call them. I can do that only if hon. Members ask one question. From now on, I want only one question and no statements; otherwise, hon. Members will be asked to resume their seats.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of action through the IMO. I also agree that it is important to concentrate on dealing with sub-standard ships and crews, which is what I intend to do.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): I welcome the fact that inspection of foreign vessels by UK marine surveyors will be extended, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that the cost of it will be met by the foreign owners?

Mr. MacGregor: The Donaldson report recommends—and this is an important principle—that the polluter pays. Therefore, those who use sub-standard crews and ships should also pay. It should not be a burden on the taxpayer. I shall now pursue with my European colleagues the way in which that approach can be implemented.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that paragraph 14.70 of the Donaldson report specifically states that the area between Grassholm and Skomer, off the coast of my constituency, should be made a marine environmental high-risk area? Will he ensure that that happens as soon as possible? Will he also change, again as soon as possible, the current voluntary code in that area to a compulsory one stating that the area is to be avoided? When will he introduce legislation to that effect?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that such action involves legislation, but I shall certainly follow up the Donaldson recommendation.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Have not the Government undermined the Donaldson report by their cuts in search and rescue and coastguard services? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if Donaldson is to be fully implemented, efficiency savings will not be enough and that new resources will be required? Will he provide them?

Mr. MacGregor: I want to be quite clear that I am seeking overall savings of 20 per cent. over two years in my Department. However, I give the assurance that that will not put at risk any approach to safety, including in this area. On the question of funding, I recommend hon. Members to read the interesting chapter 22 in the Donaldson report. It goes into financing and suggests that either charges or levies should be the main way of meeting the costs of his recommendations. I shall follow that up.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest risk of a disaster is still in the English channel? Is he aware that my constituents in Eastbourne and those of other towns along the south coast will, in particular, warmly welcome his support for more systematic inspections, especially in close co-operation with our European partners and other like-minded nations in the IMO?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State. The international salvage convention, to which we were a party five years ago, spelled out many of the aspects that we are discussing. However, the Government did not endorse it. I welcome the Donaldson report, but I am worried that the Government will delay, hiding behind the so-called difficulty about obtaining international agreement. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that other countries endorsed the convention. Is he sincere about moving forward on Donaldson's recommendations as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about ratifying conventions, he will know that currently going through Parliament—indeed, it is now in another place—is the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill. I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) for providing Parliament with the opportunity to debate a private Member's Bill. The Government were wholly behind the Bill and were anxious to find an opportunity to implement it. I am glad to see that Lord Donaldson is taking it through another place.

Mr. Matthew Banks: While welcoming the Donaldson report, and in particular its underlining of the importance of the direction that Government policy has been following for some time in this area, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important suggestions in the report is that the potential polluter should pay rather than a disproportionate and unfair burden falling on the British taxpayer as a whole?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the chapter on that subject is extremely well


argued—indeed, the argument about the polluter or the potential polluter paying runs through the report in many places. I commend to the House study of what the Donaldson report says on that.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State finally repudiate the despicable Tebbit doctrine that,
If British shipowners find it more profitable to flag out to flags of convenience, then that it is precisely what they should do"?
That is at the root of the virtual disappearance of the red ensign from the waterways of the world and the loss of tens of thousands of British seafarer jobs. Will the Secretary of State now repudiate that doctrine? If so, will he do something about the North sea where the encroachment of flags of convenience and cheap foreign labour are having exactly the same effect on the remaining rump of the British merchant navy as the Government have done to the rest of the British merchant navy?

Mr. MacGregor: As always, the hon. Gentleman goes right over the top and gets his analysis completely wrong. That is not what has been happening recently. It is important for United Kingdom shipowners, as for those throughout the European Community and elsewhere, to retain competitiveness. The key here is to ensure that it is not sub-standard crews and sub-standard ships which are providing that competitiveness. That is why, throughout my time as Secretary of State, I have strongly supported that approach. Nor is it just a blanket condemnation of flags of convenience. I commend the hon. Gentleman to read the Donaldson report; he will see that Lord Donaldson makes that very clear, not least with regard to the Braer.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On behalf of Teesport, which moves more hazardous cargo than any other port in the country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take steps at the Council of Ministers in June to ensure that some form of Europe-wide navigation Act is put into force so that all ships trading into the single market are brought up to standard, which makes it pointless for them to be flagged out to a flag of convenience?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the objectives behind what my hon. Friend says. I am not sure that a navigation Act as such is necessary. The right approach is to ensure that we get the widespread tightening of port state control to achieve what he wants to see and what I want to see.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the Secretary of State alarmed that, even in an area such as the English channel, the report says that it is not possible to guarantee that a tug could reach the scene of an accident within 12 hours, but things are even worse in areas such as the Bristol channel? As it is a matter of enormous importance for the tug to get to the scene—an incident might well turn into a disaster if the tug cannot get there in time—what guarantee can the Secretary of State give that he will improve the present situation and give proper protection to the coastal areas of wildlife in the Bristol channel?

Mr. MacGregor: The report makes a realistic and balanced analysis of the whole question of tugs, their costs and their cost effectiveness. When it comes to the recommendations, they include a salvage tug in the south-west. I have already said that I have asked the Coastguard Agency to do an analysis of that speedily, and we will then decide what action to take on the Donaldson recommendation.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that the safe routeing of ships is paramount, and obviously that is to be welcomed. With that in mind, does he agree that the proposal for the mandatory reporting of the position of ships, similar to air traffic control, is an excellent idea? Will he do his best to ensure a speedy passage of that proposal through the IMO and the European Union?

Mr. MacGregor: Without going into detail, because there are some complications, I have said that we are prepared to follow that up, and we will be doing so in both the European Union, where we will have recommendations on ships' reporting coming to us fairly soon, and the IMO. The ideal answer which currently can be achieved is the recommendation on transponders, and that is why I am keen to follow that.

Mr. John McFall: Does the Secretary of State accept that those affected by the Braer disaster will find little comfort in the recommendation for voluntary routeing? The reason why tankers go through the Minch is to save many hours on their journeys and many thousands of pounds. Without sanctions, that will be no use. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to consider a statutory framework for that recommendation?

Mr. MacGregor: I have stated that the right approach is to undertake to follow what Lord Donaldson recommends in that regard.

Ms Joan Walley: Given that the report is such a weighty volume, is the Secretary of State now prepared to go through it line by line and to allow a full debate? That would enable us to see what can be done in United Kingdom legislation and through European operations and the IMO. We need an annual report to see what progress is being made in shipping.
In view of all the work of those people who are absolutely committed to making sure that a disaster such as the Braer never happens again, and in view of what Donaldson says about transponders and the present anonymity of ships, is the Secretary of State prepared to fund a proposal from the Shetland Islands council to have radar—in the short term at least—until the long-term solutions can be considered? Will he also take on board the issue of flags of convenience?

Mr. MacGregor: I should be happy to have a debate when everyone has had a chance to digest the voluminous report. I agree with the hon. Lady on that, but that is not a matter for me. One of the recommendations in the report is for an annual report, and we will now be looking at that.
The hon. Lady mentions giving guidance line by line on where action is required in the United Kingdom, the European Union and the IMO. The report itself gives that guidance, and flags clearly where each lies. Responsibility for the majority of all major actions lies with international action rather than with purely domestic action.
There is an interesting recommendation in the report on the anonymity of ships to which I am attracted, and that would also require international agreement. The Donaldson report rejects radar in the Shetland Islands, and finally—[Interruption.] The report rejects permanent radar for Shetland.
The action I took with regard to the Braer included not only calling for the marine accident investigation branch report, but asking Lord Donaldson—a noted authority on


these matters, and that authority shines through the report —to undertake the inquiry. I can assure the House that I will now go through the report, not line by line but recommendation by recommendation, to ensure that we take follow-up action. I hope that we will take that action in the vast majority of the areas in which he recommended us to do so.

Homicide (Defence of Provocation)

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Homicide Act 1957 in respect of the defence of provocation.
The playwright Edward Bond said:
You can live without kindness; you can't live without justice".
The injustice that I seek to remove is the blatantly sexist application of the law in homicide cases and the availability of the plea of provocation.
The Townswomen's Guilds recently produced a poster headed "Provocation—a male defence?", which showed a picture of a man, with the caption:
man strangles nagging wife … sentence 18 months suspended.
and a picture of a woman, with the caption:
after years of violent abuse, woman stabs husband … sentence life".
The poster went on to say:
These are real life cases. Both defendants pleaded provocation. A successful plea reduces the sentence to manslaughter. The man was successful—the women was not.
This is the third time that the House has been asked to consider an amendment to the legal definition of provocation that would allow a woman who has experienced years of fear at the hands of a violent partner to name that as a cause if, driven beyond all endurance, she kills that partner.
I bring the Bill before the House because the plea of provocation is without doubt more easily available to men than to women. That perceived injustice does not concern only those of us in the House who share the belief that the law treats men and women differently. The Townswomen's Guilds recently presented a 40,000-signature petition to the Home Office, calling for the law to be changed, and that came from right across the political spectrum.
The noble Lord Ashley, then a Member of this place, first introduced a Bill to remove the present injustice in 1989. I presented a Bill last year and I return with it today. Hon. Members should make no mistake about it: this issue will not go away. If the Bill does not become law I, or some other hon. Member, will continue to present it or something similar until the British public are satisfied that justice, in the words of Lord Hewart, is
manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.
Lord Ashley is presenting a similar Bill to the other House next week.
At the heart of the matter is the law that specifies that the conviction of murder carries a mandatory life sentence. It is despicable that a woman who has suffered years of sustained domestic violence and acts out of fear and desperation on behalf of herself and her children should be treated as a common murderer and put away for life. Pleas of diminished responsibility or provocation are the two ways in which a person who is obviously guilty of the crime can be given a lesser sentence. It has been obvious for years that the law operates two different systems when deciding what is provocation for men and what is provocation for women.
Women are always barred from pleading provocation if the death was not the result of an immediate and "sudden loss of control"; that is the language of the law. Part of the argument about why that is discriminatory revolves around the differences between men's and women's reactions. Men act immediately and their physical strength alone can


mean instant death. Women often react more slowly. Inevitably, they must seek a weapon if they are to kill, and their fear may have to grow before they act. At present, however, the law does not recognise that difference. That oversight needs to be corrected.
The existing law and the judicial system that interprets it seem to work on the basic expectation that women must be completely obedient, submissive and subservient to their male partner's every whim. If they react after a sustained period of violence and abuse, or even in response to the threat of more to come, it is not understood or accepted as the reason for killing. The same underlying assumption does not apply to men.
Only in February, Mr. Roy Greech was given a two-year suspended sentence and walked free. The provocation that he had suffered was his wife's adultery—one of the 10 commandments that is broken, I am led to believe, by many people inside and outside this House. In Britain, adultery is not a legal crime and carries no sentence. Mr. Greech stabbed his wife 23 times and left the knife embedded in her throat. The judge told him:
You have not only been a man of good character, but you are a good man also.
In 1991, Mr. Joseph McGrail killed his common law wife by kicking her in the stomach while she was drunk. The judge expressed his sympathy with Mr. McGrail, saying:
this lady would have tried the patience of a saint".
Mr. Singh Bisla was given a suspended sentence after he strangled his wife. She had been nagging him and he wanted to shut her up. The judge told Mr. Bisla that he had "suffered".
Time and again the message is clear: it is the age-old message that is used against women whenever men do something violent to them—"She was asking for it." So British justice becomes an ass. Women can be murdered because they have affairs, are drunk or are nags. In some respects we have not moved on from 17th-century witch burnings.
Meanwhile, women like Sara Thornton, Carol Peters and Emma Humphreys still waste in prison. Emma Humphreys has been there for nearly 10 years. All three suffered years of violence and abuse and had been admitted to hospital because of the beatings that they suffered. They have been joined in prison by new women who are at the sharp end of that injustice, such as Josephine Smith. The organisation Justice for Women estimates that between 30 and 50 women are in prison although they have a history of being the victim.
Sara Thornton has been much maligned by the Home Office and some of the tabloid press, yet the police were called on many occasions when she was being assaulted and an Alcoholics Anonymous representative saw her violent husband punch her. A neighbour said that he had witnessed "her husband beat her black and blue" and she was admitted to hospital unconscious. Yet her husband was described as a "happy drunk". In Sara Thornton's case, the judge said that she could have walked out or gone upstairs. Why do judges never say that to people like Joseph McGrail? Where could women like Sara, Carol or Emma

go? There is no national provision for women's refuges, and if the Government's current proposals about homelessness are not altered, there will be fewer places in those that exist.
In our society there is still a reluctance to admit that violence is used against women. It is often seen as being the woman's fault and she is given little support. The Select Committee on Home Affairs, Lord Lane and the Law Commission have recommended that the law in relation to homicide be reviewed. Lord Chief Justice Taylor said that it is Parliament's job to review the law. It is obvious that, unless Parliament protects these women by amending the provocation law, the judiciary will continue to hand out uneven and unequal justice.
I stress that the Bill is not a licence for women to commit murder. These organisations, august bodies and personages would not support it if it were. In New South Wales, Australia, where the law has been changed, there is no evidence of any "licence to kill". The Bill proposes a recognition of provocation as a mitigating plea where domestic violence has been endured but it would still be a matter for a judge and jury to decide in all cases. We should recognise that we are legislating for desperate women who are victims of brutality—victims of a domestic war—and they should not be put in prison, especially for life.
I do not stand alone in my attempt to change the law. Apart from my many parliamentary colleagues who support the Bill—I believe, on both sides of the House—I have the privilege of speaking for the majority of women in this country who want to see the law changed. An alliance of women's organisations has been formed to campaign for the changes in my Bill. More than 6 million women are directly represented by groups such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the TUC Women's Committee, the Townswomen's Guild, National Women's Aid, Southall Black Sisters, and Women for Justice. All these groups have campaigned for a change in the law.
There is no question but that injustice occurs every time that a man walks free from a murder conviction under the provocation law while women who have suffered years of domestic violence are imprisoned. The question is: does Parliament still have the 17th-century mentality to which I referred, or does it feel that the time has come to change this unjust law? I give Parliament the opportunity to change the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Ms Clare Short, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION)

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Homicide Act 1957 in respect of the defence of provocation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 June and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Schedule 3, Clauses 19 to 33, Schedule 4, Clauses 34 to 40, Schedule 5, Clauses 41 to 51, Schedule 6, Clauses 52 to 61, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 62 to 66, Schedule 9, Clauses 67 to 78, Schedule 10, Clauses 79 to 94, Schedule 11, Clauses 95 to 127, Schedule 12, Clauses 128 to 175, Schedules 13 and 14 and Clauses 176 to 178.—[Mr. Lang.]

New clause 21

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

'. In section 88 of the 1973 Act (provision of information etc. on matters relating to functions of local authority), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
(3) A local authority may assist voluntary organisations to provide for individuals—

(a) information and advice concerning those individuals' rights and obligations; and
(b) assistance, either by the making or receiving of communications or by providing representation to or before any person or body, in asserting those rights or fulfilling those obligations.".'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 17—Voluntary organizations—
(1) 'Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall establish an interim committee with the power to consider, and as it deems appropriate to approve applications for grant aid from voluntary organisations in good standing funded by existing councils in 1995 whose funding applications to existing councils for the year 1996–97 and/or to new councils for the year 1997–98 have been refused or delayed.
(2) The committee shall number not less than five and not more than seven members chosen from among people with knowledge and experience of the voluntary sector, at least two of which shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and at least one of whom shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, with a convener appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The committee shall operate from an appropriate date in 1995 to an appropriate date in 1997 as determined by the Secretary of State.'.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In Committee, I undertook to consider an amendment that sought to confer specific powers on authorities to assist voluntary organisations in the provision of information, advice and representation. The original amendment was withdrawn on that basis. New clause 21 has been tabled following our further consideration of the issue. It seeks to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 by giving a specific statutory discretion to local authorities to assist voluntary organisations in providing people with an information, advice and representation service. It will give the new Scottish councils the same powers as local councils in England and Wales.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I did not think that the Minister would be quite so concise in his presentation. My intervention will literally be an elongated question.
I am being serious and I want a serious answer. Will the new clause allow the representatives of voluntary organisations to intervene in a strategic way in decision making about the disbursement of European structural funds? I remind the Minister that, in relation to structural funds for Northern Ireland, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), said at the Dispatch Box no more than two months ago that he could see a role on the monitoring programme committee for representatives of the voluntary organisations. So, with regard to the distribution of structural funds to voluntary organisations in Scotland, will those organisations' representatives be aided and encouraged by the clause to take part, with Scottish Office officials, in determining the way in which such money will be spent?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My understanding is that representatives of voluntary organisations are encouraged to act in partnership. I will inquire whether they are eligible to be appointed in that connection and will write to the hon. Gentleman, but certainly we would want a full input from the voluntary organisations. We would desire maximum continuity.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the other commitments given in Committee. We shall give guidance and, what is more, we shall issue directions to the new local authorities in due course, making it clear what assistance has been given to voluntary organisations in the past. We are keen that their interests should be borne in mind.
I will follow up the detailed legal questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

BYELAWS UNDER SECTION 121 OF THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982

'. In section 121 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (control of the seashore, adjacent waters and inland waters)—
(a) in subsection (5), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
(b) the local authority have given notice in writing of their proposal to make byelaws to each person having a proprietorial interest such as is mentioned, in relation to the byelaws, in paragraph (a) above whose identity has been ascertained as mentioned in the said paragraph (a);
(b) in subsection (6) the words from "and of to "that proposal" shall cease to have effect; and
(c) in subsection (7)—

(i) the words from "but the" to "his consent"; and
(ii) the word "nevertheless",

shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 194, 147, 214, 152, 216 and 154.
The intention of the new clause and the associated amendments is that they will overcome the current impasse experienced by councils wishing to make byelaws to control activities on the seashore, adjacent waters or inland waters. I believe that—

Dr. Godman: What consultations has the Minister undertaken with the Crown Commissioners concerning the areas in the new clause?

Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the new provisions are, I think, widely acceptable to those concerned, including the Crown Commissioners.
Perhaps I could give an additional answer to the hon. Gentleman's question by spelling out the provisions in more detail. The new clause will remove the arduous requirement for councils to obtain the consent of all those with a proprietorial interest in the waters and replace it with a more realistic round of consultation and consideration of objections. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has been personally involved in these matters in relation to Loch Lomond. I am sure that he will welcome the more realistic proposals that we are now putting forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 24

STAFF: APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 2 OF PART I

'.—(1) Sections 8 (except subsections (2A) and (3)), 9 and 12 of this Act shall apply also in relation to the transfer to the Administration of officers appointed under subsection (1) of section 36 of the 1968 Act and staff provided in pursuance of subsection (6) of that section with the following modifications—

(a) references to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council and references to a new authority shall be construed as references to the Administration; and
(b) the reference in section 12(2)(a) to authorities which cease to exist by virtue of Chapter I of Part I of this Act shall include a reference to authorities which cease to have functions under section 36(1) and (6) of the 1968 Act.

(2) Section 10 of this Act shall, with the modification specified in subsection (3) below, apply in relation to persons ceasing to be officers appointed or staff provided as mentioned in subsection (1) above and being subsequently employed by the Administration as it applies in relation to persons ceasing to be employed by an existing local authority and being subsequently employed by another person.
(3) The modification referred to in subsection (2) above is that references in section 10 of this Act to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council.
(4) Section 11 of this Act shall apply also in relation to the remuneration of officers appointed and staff provided as mentioned in subsection (1) above with the following modifications—

(a) references to an authority shall be construed as references only to an existing local authority and references to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council;
(b) the reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State consulting associations of local authorities and employees of local authorities shall include a reference to the Secretary of State consulting the Administration; and
(c) the reference in subsection (6) to an authority not having ceased to exist shall include a reference to an authority not having ceased to have functions under section 36(1) and (6) of the 1968 Act.

(5) Section 13 of this Act shall apply in relation to officers appointed or staff provided as mentioned in subsection (1) above with the modification that references in that section to an existing local authority shall include references to an islands council.'. —[Mr. Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 176 to 182, 60 to 62 and 185 to 187.

Mr. Stewart: All the amendments in that group are either technical or fulfil commitments made in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITIES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April 1996, establish Joint Boards for the Local Government areas comprised in each of the combined areas set out in the Table at the end of this subsection for the provision in the combined area of the services required by the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.


Grampian
Aberdeenshire, Moray, City of Aberdeen


Tayside
Angus, City of Dundee and Perthshire and Kinross (except for water purposes the former County of Kinross)


Central
Clackmannan and Falkirk, Stirling


Lothian
City of Edinburgh, West Lothian, Mid and East Lothian


Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton and Clydebank, City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire.


(2) The provisions of Sections 62A and 62C of the 1973 Act shall apply to a Joint Board established by an Order made under this Schedule as they apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under the said Section 62A.
(3) The Water and sewerage areas mentioned in subsection (1) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert
The local authorities in the areas concerned'.

Amendment (b), in line 17, at end insert—
'(1A) The members of the Joint Boards shall be elected councillors appointed in accordance with Schedule 7.'.

New clause 15—New water and sewerage areas—

'-With effect from 1st April 1996 there shall be established

(a) a body, to be known as the Borders Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Borders water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Borders sewerage area;

(b) a body, to be known as the Central Scotland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Central Scotland water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Central Scotland sewerage area;

(c) a body, to be known as the Dumfries and Galloway Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—



(i) the water authority for the Dumfries and Galloway water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Dumfries and Galloway sewerage area;

(d) a body, to be known as the Fife Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Fife water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Fife sewerage area;

(e) a body, to be known as the Grampian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Grampian water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Grampian sewerage area;

(f) a body, to be known as the Highland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Highland water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Highland sewerage area;

(g) a body, to be known as the Lothian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Lothian water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Lothian sewerage area;

(h) a body, to be known as the Strathclyde Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Strathclyde water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Strathclyde sewerage area;

(i) a body, to be known as the Tayside Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Tayside water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Tayside sewerage area;

(j) a body, to be known as the Orkney Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Orkney water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Orkney sewerage area;

(k) a body, to be known as the Shetland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Shetland water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Shetland sewerage area; and

(l) a body, to be known as the Western Isles Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Western Isles water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Western Isles sewerage area.'.

New clause 20—Constitution and proceedings of water and sewerage authorities—
'.—(1) Schedule 7 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of, and other matters relating to, each of the bodies established by section (New water and sewerage authorities) above (those bodies being, in this Act, collectively referred to as the "new water and sewerage authorities").
(2) The water areas and sewerage areas mentioned in section (New water and sewerage authorities) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.'.

New clause 25—Water supplied by meter to domestic consumers—
'Without prejudice to section 41A of the 1980 Act, no meter shall be installed in any domestic premises unless it has been requested by the occupier, and also has been consented to by the owner of the premises.'.

New clause 26—Determination of disputes—
'(1) It shall be the duty of the Customers Council to refer to the Secretary of State for determination any complaint which the Customers Council has investigated under section 66(2) above, but is unable to resolve.

(2) The practice and procedure to be followed in connection with the reference to the Secretary of State shall be such as he considers appropriate.
(3) Where the Secretary of State determines any dispute under this section he shall give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.
(4) On making such determination under this section the Secretary of State may make such incidental, supplemental and consequential provision (including provision requiring either party to pay a sum in respect of the costs or expenses incurred by the Secretary of State) as he considers appropriate.
(5) A determination under this section—

(a) shall be final; and
(b) shall be enforceable as if it were a judgement of court in so far as it included such provision as to costs or expenses as is mentioned in subsection (4) above.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not determine any relevant dispute which is the subject of proceedings before, or with respect to which judgement has been given by a court.
(7) In including in any determination under this section any provision as to costs or expenses, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the conduct and means of the parties, and any other relevant circumstances.'.

New clause 30—New water and sewerage authorities (No. 2)—
'-(1) There shall be established—

(a) a body, to be known as the Borders Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Borders water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Borders sewerage area;

(b) a body, to be known as the Central Scotland Water
Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Central Scotland water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Central Scotland sewerage area;

(c) a body, to be known as the Dumfries and Galloway Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Dumfries and Galloway water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Dumfries and Galloway sewerage area;

(d) a body, to be known as the Fife Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Fife water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Fife sewerage area;

(e) a body, to be known as the Grampian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Grampian water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Grampian sewerage area;

(f) a body, to be known as the Highland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Highland water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Highland sewerage area;

(g) a body, to be known as the Lothian Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Lothian water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Lothian sewerage area;

(h) a body, to be known as the Strathclyde Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Strathclyde water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Strathclyde sewerage area;

(i) a body, to be known as the Tayside Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Tayside water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Tayside sewerage area;

(j) a body, to be known as the Orkney Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Orkney water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Orkney sewerage area;



(k) a body, to be known as the Shetland Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Shetland water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Shetland sewerage area; and

(l) a body, to be known as the Western Isles Water Authority, which as from 1st April 1996, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Western Isles water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Western Isles sewerage area;

(2) The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April 1996, establish Joint Boards for the Local Government areas in each of the combined areas set out in the following table:


Grampian
Aberdeenshire, Moray, City of Aberdeen


Tayside
Angus, City of Dundee and Perthshire and Kinross


Central Scotland
Clackmannan and Falkirk, Stirling


Lothian
City of Edinburgh, West Lothian, Mid and East Lothian


Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton and Clydebank, City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire.

(3) The Water and Sewerage areas mentioned in subsection (1) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.'.

No. 1, a new schedule-'Water and Sewerage Areas'—


Water or Sewerage Area
Area by reference to existing or former administrative areas


Borders Water Area
Borders Region


Borders Sewerage Area
Borders Region


Central Scotland Water Area
Central Region



The former county of Kinross


Central Scotland Sewerage Area
Central Region


Dumfries and Galloway Water Area
Dumfries and Galloway Region


Dumfries and Galloway Sewerage Area
Dumfries and Galloway Region


Fife Water Area
Fife Region


Fife Sewerage Area
Fife Region


Grampian Water Area
Grampian Region


Grampian Sewerage Area
Grampian Region


Highland Water Area
Highland Region


Highland Sewerage Area
Highland Region


Lothian Water Area
Lothian Region


Lothian Sewerage Area
Lothian Region


Strathclyde Water Area
Strathclyde Region


Strathclyde Sewerage Area
Strathclyde Region


Tayside Water Area
Tayside Region except the former county of Kinross


Tayside Sewerage Area
Tayside Region


Orkney Water Area
Orkney Islands


Orkney Sewerage Area
Orkney Islands


Shetland Water Area
Shetland Islands


Shetland Sewerage Area
Shetland Islands


Western Isles Water Area
Western Isles


Western Isles Sewerage Area
Western Isles'.

No. 24, in page 53, line 32, clause 61, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 54.

No. 260, in page 53, line 41, leave out 'and'.

No. 263, in page 54, line 1, at end insert—

 '(d) a body, to be known as the Orkney Water Authority which, as from that date, shall be—

(i) the water authority for the Orkney Islands water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority for the Orkney Islands sewerage area;

(e) a body, to be known as the Shetland Water Authority which, as from that date, shall be—


(i) the water authority of the Shetland Islands water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority of the Shetland Islands sewerage area; and

(f) a body, to be known as the Western Isles Water Authority which, as from that date shall be—

(i) the water authority of the Western Isles water area; and
(ii) the sewerage authority of the Western Isles sewerage area; '.

No. 274, in page 138, line 17, schedule 7, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—'Membership of Water and Sewerage Authorities
3. The members of an authority shall be—

(a) elected councillors from the Joint Board area reflecting the votes cast for each political party or independent grouping at the most recent local government elections.
(b) appointed by those councils (hereafter referred to as the "appointing authorities") within the area of the Water and Sewerage Authorities.
(c) such number of elected councillors as the councils in the area covered by the authority shall by agreement determine.'.

No. 10, in page 138, leave out lines 18 to 23 and insert—
'3. The members of an authority shall be—

(a) such number of elected councillors as the councils in the area covered by the authority shall by agreement determine and shall be appointed by those councils (in this schedule referred to as the "appointing authorities"),
(b) the person who is for the time being the chief executive of the authority.'.

No. 259, in page 138, line 22, after 'authority', insert
'provided that in making appointments to the North of Scotland Water Authority, he shall appoint at least one person who appears to him to have knowledge or experience specifically relevant to the discharge of the Authority's functions in the Islands Area;'.

No. 11, in page 138, leave out line 24 and insert—
'4. The appointing authority shall be satisfied-'.

No. 12, in page 138, line 25, leave out 'he' and insert
'it'

No. 257, in page 138, line 29, at end add—
'(c) before the appointment of any person under paragraph 3(a) above comes into effect, that the person has declared in a form which the Secretary of State shall prescribe and make public, current membership of any political party, and details of any financial contribution to a political party in the previous five years;
(d) from time to time, and at no longer than yearly intervals, that each person so appointed has updated the declaration of party political interests required in sub-paragraph (c) above.'.

No. 13, in page 138, line 30, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.

No. 14, in page 138, line 31, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.

No. 15, in page 138, line 32, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.

No. 16, in page 138, line 33, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.

No. 17, in page 138, line 38, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.

No. 18, in page 139, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appointing authority'.

No. 19, in page 139, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
'8.—(1) The members of an authority shall appoint one of their number, other than their chief executive, to be chairman and may appoint another to be deputy chairman; and a chairman, or as the case may be deputy chairman, shall hold and vacate the office in question in accordance with the terms under which he is appointed to that office.'.

No. 279, in page 139, line 13, leave out

'The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members of an authority, other than their chief executive,' and insert
'Water Authorities shall appoint one of their members'.

No. 20, in page 139, line 20, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'authority'.

No. 21, in page 139, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State may vary the terms of the instrument' and insert
'the authority may vary the terms'.

No. 23, in page 140, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert—
'11. An Authority shall appoint its Chief Executive on such terms and conditions as it may determine; and the authority may make subsequent appointments to the office of Chief Executive on such terms and conditions as they may determine.'.

No. 22, in page 140, line 34, after 'committees' insert
'comprising solely of persons who have been elected to serve as councillors in local authorities which lie within the geographical area of the water authority.'.

No. 243, in page 141, line 32, at end insert—
'17A (1) All Water Authority meetings shall be held in public with the exception of confidential items agreed by a majority of Board Members, with suitable notice and publicity given to them and minutes of meetings shall be available on request and at reasonable cost to members of the public,
(2) Water authorities shall prepare and publish annual plans and arrange for public consultation on them.'.

No. 9, in page 142, schedule 8, leave out lines 1 to 42.

No. 261, in page 142, line 38, leave out 'The Islands Area'.

No 262, in page 142, line 42, leave out 'The Islands Area', and insert—


'Orkney Water Area
Orkney Islands


Orkney Sewerage Area
Orkney Islands


Shetland Water Area
Shetland Islands


Shetland Sewerage Area
Shetland Islands


Western Isles Water Area
Western Isles


Western Isles Sewerage Area
Western Isles.'.

No. 82, in page 56, line 2, clause 64, after 'access' insert
'(including access for recreational purposes)'.

No. 266, in page 56, line 11, at end insert—
'(3) The new water and sewerage authorities shall consult the Customers Council established under section 66 below on such matters as appear to effect the interests of the customers or potential customers of that authority.'.

No. 267, in page 86, line 33, clause 65, at end insert—
'() An authority shall publicise its procedures for dealing with complaints in such manner as may be agreed with the Customers Council.'.

Government amendment No. 184.

No. 268, in page 143, line 19, schedule 9, leave out 'and' and insert—
'(ab) customers and potential customers who are disabled; and'.

No. 258, in page 143, line 20, at end insert
'provided that, where appropriate, there shall be at least one representative of customers living in the Islands Area;'.

No. 269, in page 143, line 20, at end insert
'provided always that a majority of the Members shall be representative of the interests of domestic customers.'.

No. 252, in page 143, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) Each local authority shall appoint one councillor to the Customers Council.'.

No. 256, in page 143, line 27, after 'him', insert—
'which terms shall include a requirement that the member shall declare and keep up to date, in a form prescribed and made public by the Secretary of State, any current membership of a political party and the details of any financial contribution to a political party in the previous five years;'.

No. 253, in page 144, line 41, leave out

'with the approval of the Secretary of State'.

Government amendments Nos. 83 to 88.

No. 265, in page 61, clause 75, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
'except that the same basis for charging shall apply throughout the area served by the authority.'.

No. 264, in page 61, line 50, at end insert—
'(8) A draft charges scheme shall be presented in a form to be specified by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Customers Council.'.

Government amendments Nos. 89 to 95, 158 to 161, 96, 162, 98, 148 and 149.

Mr. Robertson: I confess that this is a difficult day on which to resume our debate on Scottish water, one of the most contentious issues in Scottish politics today, because our proceedings are inevitably overshadowed by the death of and mourning for John Smith.
First, I should like to express publicly my gratitude and that of the whole Labour party to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the sincerity and feeling of his reaction in Inverness last Thursday to the news of John's death. Many people throughout Scotland have remarked on the honesty and frankness of the Secretary of State's instinctive comments, which were deeply moving and clearly came from the heart. We were also touched by the decision to suspend the Conservative party conference as a mark of respect. Scottish politics can often be noisy and tough, and its passion mirrors the strength of feeling on the issues that divide us. But in Scotland, too, we know when to separate the person from the message. Last week, uniquely, our whole nation put aside its political differences to grieve together for one of Scotland's greatest sons.
Although this debate takes place in tragic and unique circumstances, the subject of the new clause—Scotland's water and sewerage services—still represents one of the most important and divisive issues in Scotland today. The issue is divisive not just between the parties. How water is to be controlled, administered and financed drives a wedge right down the Conservative party as well. In the present atmosphere of non-combativeness, I shall not labour the fact that what the Government propose for water and sewerage is simply not acceptable in Scotland. To put it in the gentlest and most diplomatic way possible, what the Government are doing in relation to water is unpopular, unnecessary, impractical and just plain undemocratic.
After 150 years of municipal control and administration—a century and a half in which local, close, accountable control was deemed both efficient and effective for delivering such fundamental services—the Government are handing over the service to three new super-quangos which are unelected, centralised, remote and as unaccountable as all the other quangos have turned out to be.
It need not be like that. New clause 1 and amendment No. 10, together with the consequential amendments, offer the House a practical and implementable solution to the future of Scotland's water which should attract the support of all Members of the House. There would be 12 joint water boards—exactly the same number as currently run Scotland's water services—based on the new local authorities concerned, and there would be a clear legal injunction that their members should be elected councillors from the areas that they serve. This is a practical and workable proposal. It would provide for local, open,


efficient and effective delivery of these council services. Most importantly, the administration would be close to the citizens involved.
Having, in the interests of decency and moderation, put forward a way in which the Government could satisfy public demands concerning water, I want to put a number of questions to Ministers. I do so in all innocence. How have the Government reached a position in which the once-mighty Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland languishes in fourth position and enjoys the support of fewer than 14 per cent. of the Scottish people as expressed through the ballot box?
First, why do the Government continue to insist that their own plan for three quangos is the only course of action that is open following this proposed reorganisation? After all, we have in new clause 1 a perfectly sensible and practical plan for Scotland's water. It is perfectly in tune with the alternatives that the Government themselves laid out in the consultative document, "Investing for Our Future", which was published two years ago. That document makes the position quite clear:
Over the years local authorities, of various sizes and configurations, have shown that they can effectively deliver water and sewerage services.
I could not put it better, and nor could any Scottish councillor, of whatever political view.
Under option (b)—the joint board option—which the Government themselves explore, the document says:
The creation of joint boards to undertake services which require a larger area of operation than the structure of local government units is precedented; and it is acknowledged in the local government consultation paper as a positive way of providing certain services in the future.
That is what "Investing for our future" has to say about the alternative that I am putting before the House. In any event, the argument about how the Government can deal with the issue of water and sewerage following their proposed reorganisation has been adopted in relation to police and fire services in Scotland. These services, the importance of which is undeniable, will continue to be delivered and administered by eight joint boards.
While we are on the subject of delivery quangos and the number of organisations that will be required, may I ask why the Government have settled on the figure three? Why is three the optimum? In the consultative document it is not so. Why should not the number by six, eight or 12? The consultative document refers even to 15 as being perfectly feasible. With three centralised boards, areas will be so big that they will cease to be logical. Power and control will be taken well away from the people. We shall have three quangos, unelected and remote.
The Opposition's solution would not in any way contradict the Government's stated objective with regard to water and sewerage. It would have no effect at all on the raising of capital that might be required over the next 15 years. It would have no more impact than would the three quangos themselves on the public sector borrowing requirement, and it would have no effect whatever on the future price of water, but it would provide the important reassurance that people's views matter and that their water supplies will still be controlled locally by individuals answerable to and removable by the people themselves.
The second innocent question in my pursuit of knowledge is why the Government will not acknowledge that the principle of close, open, local, accountable control

of water, which has governed for 150 years the administration of that basic service, is now being compromised?
The principle of municipal control of water and sewerage is hardly new. It goes back some 150 years, when far-sighted, public-spirited and far from ideological council leaders realised that public health could be guaranteed, not by a fragmented shambolic private sector, but by public control of water and sewerage supplies. Generations of civic leaders in Scotland embracing all political complexions invested public funds, bought land and lochs, constructed reservoirs, laid the pipelines and made the regulations. Their legacy today—a century and a half later—is a water supply safer, healthier and cheaper than possibly anywhere else in the world.
The Government do not have to listen to the 97 per cent. of the Strathclyde electorate in the water referendum, although they certainly should; they need only look at the history books and learn the lessons of municipal water over the years. Even if, with the recklessness and disdain that cost them dearly in the regional elections, they continue to ignore the crushing verdict of the people, and even if they can somehow rationalise their dismissal of opinion polls which regularly and relentlessly show massive rejection of their plans, even by Conservative supporters, and even if they are daft enough, or deaf and blind enough to do all that, will Ministers not listen to the message that comes loud and clear from their own political families?
A pretty plain view is being given to the Government by many sections of their own party in Scotland. They should listen to the words of Councillor Ian Hutchison, the leader of Eastwood district council, one of the last outposts of the Conservatism in Scotland and the local authority of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). They are close associates, but friends would be to stretch the meaning of the word slightly too far. If one had to pick out of the 5 million people in the Scottish population anyone who is not likely to be a member of the three super-quangos, Councillor Ian Hutchison is probably at the top of the list.

Mr. Stewart: Quite right.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister says, "Quite right," and Hansard will record it. However, he may not have anyone else to appoint, so perhaps he should not block off his options.
Councillor Ian Hutchison said:
The board members should be directly responsible to the local electorate. I do not believe it is good enough for the Secretary of State to say they are responsible to him and through him to Parliament".
They are not my words or those of the Labour party, but the words of one of the last few Conservative activists in Scotland.
What about listening to the views of the now decimated Tayside region Conservative group? Alan Powrie wrote to me in April to explain its view:
For your information I quote from an unsuccessful amendment which we proposed at the Water Services Committee and which … said 'The Secretary of State be urged to consider that the appointments to the new Water Authorities should be elected accountable councillors, who would be nominated by their Constituent Councils."'
That is the view of one of the significant Conservative groups in the country at that time. It was a view shared by the Conservative groups on Edinburgh district council and Stirling district council.
Perhaps all those I have quoted and more in the Conservative party are misinformed, too. Perhaps they have all been converted by Labour propaganda and leaflets. Perhaps they are all deluded, diverted and confused, like everyone else identified by the Government as being opposed to their proposals, or—and I ask the Secretary of State in all sincerity—could it be that they, like everybody else in Scotland, have got it right and that the Government have got it wrong?
4.45 pm
My third question is why Ministers do not understand the fears in Scotland about water privatisation. Why do they continue to denigrate the genuine fears that exist? Why do Conservative politicians of seniority and apparent intelligence not comprehend that words and promises are simply not reassurance enough to a electorate which is not convinced by mere words and promises from the Government?
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), is not here this afternoon. His wife suffered a heart attack yesterday and we send him the strongest sympathy and deepest good wishes of everybody in the House. He made a real stab at putting some meat behind the words of the new clause, which will now underline the illegality in Scotland of disconnections from water supplies. It was an honourable effort and 56,000 disconnected families south of the border will look on with envious astonishment, but it was still not enough to convince people.
The electorate of Scotland, including Conservatives, look at what happened in England and Wales and ask themselves the following question, and it is not a naive question: if the Government thought it so brilliant in England and Wales to privatise water, why stop at Gretna Green and Berwick-upon-Tweed?
The bemused public seeking reassurance will recall the words of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on 9 March 1993:
Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere".—[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 783.]
We were told afterwards that it was a slip of the tongue and that he had simply wrongly anticipated the result of the consultation. But people outside here will remember the words of the Prime Minister and not necessarily those of junior Ministers in the First Scottish Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
People will also look at that revealing consultative document again, and it is well worth reading. They will look at the way in which the Government outlined the different options for the future prospects for water in Scotland. I venture to suggest that they will find it significant that the option that the Government are defending in the House of Commons today, the option chosen by the Government after the consultation exercise, is described in the document in a mere 15 lines while the privatisation option, the full privatisation in accordance with England and Wales, takes up 218 lines. When people compare 15 lines with 218 lines, they come to a conclusion. One can call them misled or misinformed, but very often they are much cleverer than those who seek to hoodwink them. It is no wonder that suspicion grows.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I am following his argument with care and I agree with it. Does he agree that one factor which heightened the suspicions to which he rightly draws the attention of the House was the fact that the Government have steadfastly refused, against all odds, to publish the Quayle-Monroe report, which looked into the background of the options available to the Government?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that issue, which has added to the secrecy of the exercise. The decision has simply fuelled the suspicions that I identified and that Conservative Members must have taken into account and must be finding on their doorsteps. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), are intimately familiar with the strength of people's suspicions. There has been a vote on the specific issue to remind them of the fact. All Conservative Members—representing, as they now do, only 13.7 per cent. of the Scottish electorate—cannot but be riveted by the fact that people do not believe the way in which the Government have put forward their position.
I have offered the Government a way out. My hon. Friends and I have tabled the proposals contained in new clause 1 and amendment No. 10 which, if adopted today, would give the reassurance that privatisation is not an option.

Mr. George Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman seems once again to be raising the spectre of privatisation, despite the fact that in Committee my hon. Friends clearly said that that was not on the agenda. How can he reconcile his own comments on the BBC television programme "Scottish Lobby"—made after the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), had introduced in Committee his amendment to prevent water supplies from being cut off —that it was now virtually impossible to privatise Scottish water?

Mr. Robertson: It is not I who am seeking to persuade the electorate, but the electorate who have not been persuaded by the assurances given. I have already made it clear—I think that I have been more open than many of the Government spokesmen—that the amendment tabled by the Under-Secretary of State valuably underlined the state of the existing law and attempted to put some meat on the promise. But he did not manage to make a convincing case because of the other aspects.
However, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has a means of doing so: if the Government accept new clause 1 and amendment No. 10 today, I shall appear on "Scottish Lobby" or any other programme and say that it now looks as though the Government mean what they say and do not intend to privatise Scottish water. That is the test and I hope that, if the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside considers it important—for his own political future and for Scotland as a whole—he will take up that challenge today.
I now come to my final innocent question for today. Why will not the Secretary of State, in one simple sentence today, unite his party and—if only for one fleeting moment —the whole of Scotland, by welcoming, recognising and saluting the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland? The vast majority of the people do not see water as merely


another commodity to be traded in the marketplace. They know that it is expensive, even when plentiful; they also know and believe that it is precious, natural and life-giving.
The Secretary of State for Scotland faces a test, and no small one. He can either plough on, driving the new quango structure through this House and the House of Lords in the face of hostility and rejection unprecedented on any issue in modern times, hoping and praying that it will all come right in a blinding revelation just before the next election—the politics of the tooth fairy—or he can put the interests of his country and its people, which on this issue happen to coincide with the interests of the survival of the Conservative party, before the unpopular and ideological model for Scotland's water. In this unique week of remarkably reflective politics, the Secretary of State should not heed me or any other politician who gives him advice: he should just listen to the people.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I shall be relatively brief. When we talk of privatisation we must recognise—as I did in Committee—that the Government's original intention was to see the privatisation of the water and sewerage systems. I do not dispute that; I feel that we were given a guide to Government thinking when the Prime Minister made his remarks about the privatisation of Scottish water. But the Secretary of State went out to consultation and the massive response from Scotland showed that privatisation was not wanted there. It was to the Government's credit that they listened to that message and found a means of treating water and sewerage so as to achieve the objectives of providing water and sewerage services under a new local government structure that would be of benefit, in terms of cost in the longer term, and in terms of quality.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am closely following the hon. Gentleman's argument. Can he name any body of opinion in Scotland that supports quangos or the expansion of quangos and the quangoisation of water?

Mr. Gallie: Given the Labour party's record of establishing quangos and the fact that the Government have recently set up so-called quangos, with enterprise companies and other organisations, with people becoming involved and giving so much of their time and effort, does not the hon. Gentleman believe that those who have given so much would argue the benefits of quangos? The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is looking into the position of Scottish Enterprise, which is basically a quango, and it is finding much support throughout Scotland for the efforts of the enterprise companies. I see no reason to doubt that the water and sewerage authorities, providing that they deliver the goods—I have every reason to believe that they will—will achieve widespread support in the future.

Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that those were choice words from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), as there are significantly fewer quangos now in Scotland than there were under the Labour Government?

Mr. Gallie: I agree with my hon. Friend. I also made that point when I suggested past Labour Governments had created many organisations, perhaps in many cases for good reason.
I believe that the three structures envisaged for the new water authorities, given their size, are just about right. The geographical requirements of the system have been recognised, especially with regard to the requirements for

fairly large catchment areas. The fact that the scale of water treatment is also an important element has been recognised. Transmission and distribution are major features that can benefit from the reasonable scale and geographical basis of the authorities that are to be established.
People have concentrated on the water issue in Scotland; perhaps people have tended to forget about that other important service, sewage treatment and disposal. Local authorities do not have as good a record on that as they should have. I believe that when the bodies with sole responsibility for looking at water and sewerage provision, or sewage treatment and disposal, are concentrating their minds on those issues it will almost certainly result in their giving the people of Scotland a better service.
I must tell the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that I spoke on that subject at the Conservative party conference and at a fringe meeting organised by the Glasgow Herald, and at that meeting I did find hostility within the Conservative party, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, on the issues of water and sewerage. But I have to say that, by the time the meeting had finished—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but the editor of the Glasgow Herald was there. His reporters were there. They saw exactly what happened and heard the remarks.
Quite honestly, even within the Conservative party, to our discredit, the real situation with water and sewerage, the real arguments for my right hon. Friend taking the steps that he has—despite the massive amount of information that was given, and despite the consultation paper and the detail behind it—have just not got out. But I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, if he pursues the objective as currently set out in the Bill, the people of Scotland will come to appreciate why he took that line.

5 pm

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the night of 5 May, when he and I were in the Dam Park hall in Ayr and saw Labour votes piling on Labour votes, and when the people of Ayr made it quite clear that they rejected the Conservative party and its policies on water and sewerage, just as they did in the Strathclyde referendum? Would not the hon. Gentleman be well advised to start thinking about the possibility of representing the views of his constituents, which were so clearly expressed, when he speaks in the Chamber?

Mr. Gallie: I can remember back to the regional elections in 1990 in Dam Park. I can think back to the general election in 1992. I can think back to the district elections in 1992, when the Labour party was minimalised; it was almost wiped out, but not sufficiently. But having said that, what Members of Parliament must do is stick by their principles and strive towards their objectives. I believe that the best interests of my constituents will be served by adopting the line that my right hon. Friend has taken. I welcome that. I would also like—

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: Well, finally, because I do not want to delay the House.

Mr. Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman rejecting the people of his constituency who voted overwhelmingly


against the Government's privatisation of water in Scotland and the road that the Government are going down to force privatisation? If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he listens to his constituents, he will support us tonight.

Mr. Gallie: I do listen to my constituents. I believe that there were issues other than water. What happens in regional elections—very sadly for local authorities—is that people do not judge, nor do they vote on, the issues that are before them, such as regional handling of local government affairs. In that regional election, they forget that. They created a protest atmosphere and went down that line. I am sad about that, because it undervalued local government, which many Conservative Members value.
We particularly welcome two issues: the commitment not to have disconnections in Scotland; and the commitment, so strongly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), to stand out totally against privatisation in Scotland.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I agree entirely with the apparent assessment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) of the local government election results in Scotland—that it was a massive vote of no confidence in the economic policies of the Tory Government, their policies on local government reorganisation and their disastrous plans for water, sewerage and everything else.
I support new clause 1, which was moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), and associate myself with the other new clauses and amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends.
The Government's declared aim in the Bill is to make local services more accountable to the people of Scotland. Whatever we think about the rest of the Bill—many of us know that it is a charter for gerrymandering and nothing else—if we measure the Government's proposals on water and sewerage services on that test of accountability, they fail. Instead of making those services more accountable to the people of Scotland, the Government are proposing to do the opposite.
Water and sewerage are currently administered by authorities consisting of the elected representatives of the people, who are directly elected by the people and are directly accountable to the people. That measure of democratic accountability will be lost entirely if the Government's proposals go ahead, because the Government are saying that, instead of those elected representatives administering water and sewerage, there should be three over-centralised quangos, which, in effect, would remove any local accountability.
New clause 1 is a very sensible proposal. If the Government are hell-bent on going ahead with the rest of the local government carve-up, as proposed in the Bill, they could at least keep an element of local accountability in water and sewerage, if they accept new clause 1. The proposals contained in it are modelled by and large on a body that already exists in Scotland—the Central Scotland Water Development Board. Some people might not know about it. It consists of representatives from the various local authorities that it covers.
If the Government are hell-bent on going ahead with the carve-up of Scotland, they could still retain some local accountability if they accepted new clause 1 and accepted the water areas envisaged in it. Members of those water

boards would be elected representatives of the people. That solution, perhaps, is not as good as the one at present where the representatives are directly elected by the people on to the regional and islands councils, but at least it would offer an element of indirect election and therefore indirect accountability.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider that and bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said about the history of municipal enterprise regarding the provision of water and sewerage services to the people of Scotland. It has never been one of nationalisation. It has never been one of an over-centralised, bureaucratic style of public ownership. The reason why the initiative was taken—on what has turned out to be one of the most successful pieces of public enterprise in the country—was not because of any Marxist, or even socialist, doctrine. People realised that, if they were to have adequate standards of public health, representatives elected at local level would have to take the initiative that private enterprise was unwilling, indeed unable, to take. The initiative grew up from grass-roots level, rather than being thrust on people by the state.
Before previous reorganisations of local government, many small towns and burghs had their own reservoirs and pipe systems to provide a good, reliable, clean water supply. As people in third-world countries know, water is one of the basic essentials of life: it is an even more fundamental necessity than food. What is true in third-world countries is just as true in so-called developed countries such as ours.
My grandfather was a Labour councillor on Cowdenbeath town council back in the 1920s. I remember that one of his proudest possessions was a photograph of him and other councillors at the annual inspection of the town's reservoir, which was Loch Glow at the time. I am sure that many councillors throughout Scotland had similar experiences. It was not just an annual outing; the annual inspection of one of the most important services they provided for their people was something they took very seriously.
No doubt my hon. Friends from Glasgow could speak more eloquently than I about the initiative that was taken by their city fathers back in Victorian times. Many were right-wing Tories; indeed, their economic policies may have been even more right-wing than those some of the Ministers who are present today. But they took the initiative—a public-enterprise initiative—in launching that wonderful project to provide the people of Scotland with water piped from Loch Katrine and other parts of the country.
They may have done it for selfish reasons. Perhaps they realised that public health was universally important: if the poor people in their slum housing or work places became sick, they too might be affected. Disease is no respecter of persons; it can spread like wildfire through a whole community, regardless of whether the people in that community have money. Even if self-preservation was the motive, however, I must give those city fathers and other pioneers the credit for initiating one of the most successful examples of public enterprise that Scotland has ever seen.

Mr. Graham: As my hon. Friend may know, our Scottish water is, on average, £70 a year cheaper than English water. Wales pays an average of £233 a year for its water. Our forefathers certainly gave us a good deal—and these folk want to get their grubby hands on it.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is quite right. I shall deal with water prices shortly.
I suppose that, at the time of the last local government reorganisation, with the advent of regionalisation, a certain amount of merging of water authorities was necessary. Now, however, the Government are proposing a gross over-centralisation—and the boards will not consist of locally elected representatives, accountable to the people directly or indirectly. The Government may claim that the privatisation threat is just a bogey man created by us; they may say that they have no intention of privatising. They should ask the people of Scotland, who have already given their verdict in the Strathclyde referendum.
We need only observe the effects of privatisation south of the border and the number of disconnections resulting from massive price increases. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) mentioned prices. The Government's own consultation document points out that Central region has the cheapest water in the United Kingdom—possibly the cheapest in Europe—costing £20 per annum for domestic consumers. There may have been a modest price increase since, but Central regional council can nevertheless be justly proud of its record.

Mr. William McKelvey: The Government have said that they will not privatise Scottish water in the foreseeable future. We should give them some credit for that; after all, it is similar to what they said about the extension of VAT just before the general election. No one foresaw any such extension—but VAT is now charged on fuel.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, people can see what has happened south of the border as a result of privatisation, with increased charges and disconnections. They have had a drastic effect on public health: huge percentage increases have been reported in cases of dysentery. I believe that, in south Staffordshire, one in seven households in one particular multi-storey block were disconnected, and people were throwing excrement out of the windows. No wonder there is a serious threat to public health as a result of privatisation.
The Government should listen to the people. The people are afraid of privatisation; they do not trust the Government and they reject the Bill's proposals—as the Strathclyde referendum clearly showed. The Minister may say that the referendum did not cover the whole of Scotland. Well, the recent local government elections covered the whole of Scotland—and, as I have said, they produced a massive vote of no confidence in the Tory Government, in regard to water and everything else.
I plead with the Government to listen to the voice of the people. The people of Scotland want Scotland's water to remain their property and they want democratic accountability through the elected representatives of the people. If the Government are hell-bent on destroying the status quo, they might at the very least accept my hon. Friend's new clause.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Let me say to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that the loss of John Smith has had an impact on all of us. This is another sad case of a man of great intelligence and ability being

taken from us far too young. Although his loss is felt most acutely by the Labour party, I think that Labour's feelings are shared by all. On behalf of the Scottish National party, let me extend our thoughts and condolences to John Smith's family and wish them all strength and courage at what must be a trying time.
I will be brief, as I know that hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee wish to speak. Brevity, however, will not lessen my anger at the Government's proposals. Quite simply, no change is wanted in Scotland. The people of Scotland do not want water services to be taken out of local government; they want to retain local accountability and local control.
The Government had no mandate for this move at the last general election. On the contrary, the people of Scotland rejected their policy. They certainly had no mandate at the recent local government elections: indeed, they were specifically rejected, gaining less than 14 per cent. of the Scottish vote—about 6 per cent. of the electorate. There could be no greater rejection of any Government, yet this Government are intent on forcing through their proposals for water, against the wishes of the people.
That is not fair or democratic; in fact, it is the opposite of democracy. Scotland is powerless. The system will be run by Unionist-created quangos. It is just not good enough for three unelected quangos to meet secretly, behind closed doors, especially when they are commandeering, indeed stealing, Scotland's water assets, which were created not by central Government but by generations of local taxpayers.
The SNP wants water to be provided as a local authority service run by democratically elected councils in the public interest and for the public good. The Bill should be dumped. The message given to the Government at local elections was simply that. They should take the hint and keep water services a local authority provision. Sadly, I do not think that that will happen.
If the Government go ahead, our amendments propose an SNP alternative organisation for water and sewerage services in Scotland—water authorities organised on a regional basis with the minimum disruption of staff or services, with maximum continuity of water services provision. There would be no extra financial cost and no extra bureaucracy, which is inherent in the Government's proposals.
Our amendments outline a sensible solution, but regrettably it is not the Government's solution. The water authorities that we propose would be chosen not by the Secretary of State but by democratically elected local authorities in proportion to votes cast, following the democratic will of the people and not the will of the Secretary of State. Their chairpersons would be chosen not by the Secretary of State but by democratically elected local authorities.
Our amendments seek to reduce the Secretary of State's role and to increase the powers given to local authorities elected by the people. Meetings of the water boards should be held in public, apart from obvious safeguards in cases of exceptionally confidential matters, and minutes of their meetings should also be publicly available. There should be local authority representation on the customers council, as well as representatives from consumer and other interests, such as the disabled.
Such an open, accountable system contrasts starkly with the closed, remote and unaccountable organisations proposed by the Government. Their three giant quangos will provide at most minimal accountability.
There is an unanswered paradox in the Government's proposals. They attack regions as remote and unaccountable, yet the Government are creating even larger non-accountable water boards, and no doubt fattening them for eventual privatisation. The Government are providing no real safeguards to the general public in respect of an essential, monopolistic service that is used by everyone daily. The public cannot avoid using water services, yet there will be no public control or accountability over those assets, which generations of local taxpayers created. Now they will be commandeered or stolen by central Government and handed to quangos.
I have no questions for the Government because their minds are clearly closed on that issue, but I have a message for them: dump this unwanted stealing of Scotland's water assets. It is unwanted, unnecessary, unfair and undemocratic. They should dump their proposals, because that is what the people of Scotland want the Government to do.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I thank the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for his opening remarks, for which I am grateful. This is of course a difficult day to join battle across the Floor of the House on Scottish issues. Nevertheless, the future of Scottish water and sewerage is a controversial and important matter. It is no less controversial because our debate today may be a little more muted, but I hope that thereby we may shed more light in place of some of the heat that has gone before.
I will begin by speaking to the Government amendments in the group. Amendment No. 82 stems from an undertaking given in Committee that we would introduce a specific reference to access for recreational purposes in clause 64. That was not by way of changing the intention behind the clause as originally drafted, but by way of making that intention clearer. The amendment fulfils the undertaking that was given.
Amendments Nos. 158 to 161 also stem from an undertaking given in Committee, to re-examine clause 109 —formerly clause 105, which deals with the vesting of certain supply pipes. We looked again at the clause and have concluded that some change is required to ensure that apparatus, such as pumps, used in connection with a pipe is covered by the clause. Those amendments make the necessary changes.
Amendment No. 184 is a small change suggested to us by the Scottish Consumer Council, which put in a power of work on this Bill, to ensure that authorities' complaints procedures and other features of their codes of practice are brought to the attention of customers—the potential beneficiaries of the codes. I am happy to table the necessary amendment, which I am sure is acceptable.
Amendments Nos. 83 to 92 and amendment No. 96 are purely drafting amendments, to remove any possible ambiguity from the term "sewerage services". Amendment No. 93 is a technical amendment, the effect of which is to make explicit that disconnection for non-payment of charges for domestic supplies cannot take place, whether

those charges are demanded by the water authorities under clause 73 or by the local councils acting under a clause 78 order. I am sure that that is welcome.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Has the right hon. Gentleman held discussions with the team of the Secretary of State for the Environment, with a view to extending his welcome amendment to the Bill to the Water Act 1989, so that that provision will apply also to England and Wales?

Mr. Lang: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I have held no such discussions. It is open to the hon. Lady to draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Her question allows me to emphasise that we do things differently in Scotland, according to our priorities there. I am happy to reiterate that disconnections will remain illegal in Scotland.
Amendment No. 95 is a drafting amendment that makes clause 92 refer specifically to clause 96, which was introduced at Committee stage, rather than generally to chapter 2 of part 1. Amendments Nos. 94, 148, 149, 98 and 162 are purely drafting amendments, to insert appropriate definitions into the Bill. I commend those amendments to the House.
I refer now to the Opposition amendments. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, new clause 1 would establish five joint boards of the new unitary authorities, to provide water and sewerage services in the areas of the current Grampian, Tayside, Central, Lothian and Strathclyde regional councils.
New clause 15 and amendment No. 1 would establish 12 new water authorities, to provide water and sewerage in the areas of the current regional and islands councils. Amendment No. 10 would ensure that the members of the new water authorities were elected councillors appointed by the new unitary authorities in the water authority areas.
The Labour party's proposals would result in water and sewerage being delivered by 12 new authorities effectively run by the new unitary local authorities, or by a mixture of such authorities and joint boards of the new unitary authorities where the water authority areas cover several unitary authorities. I hope that that sets them out succinctly. New clause 20 and amendments Nos. 9 to 24 are consequential on or secondary to those main proposals.
The Scottish National party's amendments to new clause 1, together with their new clause 30 and amendment No. 274, would ensure that members of authorities and joint boards were elected councillors appointed by the appropriate councils themselves, with the appointment in the case of those coming from joint board areas reflecting the relative strength of the political parties.
There was extensive debate in Committee on those points. Consideration of clause 61, dealing with the new structure for the water and sewerage services, began at 6.45 pm on 24 March and clause 61 was agreed to just before 10.30 pm on 29 March. That gave some nine hours of debate. The arguments were fully examined and comprehensively answered.
The current structure fits the current organisation of local government into regional, district and islands councils. Those councils, however, are, for good reasons, to be replaced by the new unitary authorities. In those


circumstances, it does not make sense to perpetuate the current areas for the provision of water and sewerage alone.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The arguments were not comprehensively answered in Committee. One particular problem was referred to at length yesterday, at a briefing by Lothian purification board at Clearwater house in Livingston which I attended, and at which the Scottish Office was represented at senior level. Who will take responsibility for the problem of pumps that no longer pump water from coal mines into rivers such as the Almond? There is a real, massive, urgent ferruginous problem of which the Scottish Office is well aware. The unanswered question is, who will pay for the investment created by the problem of pits no longer working and pumping, and all the difficulties that arise therefrom for the water of central Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the Coal Board and the existing water authorities will have some responsibility in that direction, but that is not the subject of these amendments.

Mr. Wallace: Of course, the islands councils have not changed, so what is the argument for incorporating them into much larger water authorities, when, for the past 20 years, they have had their own water and sewerage authorities?

Mr. Lang: If I may, I shall come to the islands councils later in my remarks.
The issue that has dominated the debate, however, is the question of privatisation.

Mr. Eric Clarke: rose—

Mr. Lang: I really must make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

Mr. Clarke: It is central to that point.

Mr. Lang: All right, I give way briefly on that point.

Mr. Clarke: It is on the same point as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). During the privatisation of coal in the Coal Industry Bill, an unsatisfactory answer was given to us on the same subject. It is a serious problem, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, especially in Northumberland, Durham and other places of that nature, to which hon. Members have drawn attention. It is very important, because if that problem is not addressed, it will pollute all the waterways and even the water that sinks into the reservoirs from where we draw water.

Mr. Lang: I envisage that the responsibility on that matter lies with the Coal Board and if I find out that there is a problem that takes that matter outside its responsibility, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and clarify the position.
The present debate has been dominated by the question of privatisation. I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to say yet again to the House that privatisation is not part of the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for Hamilton raised the question of the Government denigrating the fears of those who suggested that water was

to be privatised. I do not denigrate those who have fears about those matters, but I denigrate those who have placed those fears in people's minds without foundation.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the Prime Minister in March last year, but those remarks of the Prime Minister were before the Government had consulted and considered and decided on their way forward in Scotland. Now, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has confirmed, along with others in the Cabinet including myself repeatedly, that we are not privatising Sottish water, nor are we planning to privatise it.
May I go back—

Mrs. Helen Jackson: rose—

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Mr. Lang: I have already given way to the hon. Lady, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Welsh: I understand what the Minister is saying, but does he understand the scepticism with which the remarks are greeted? People believed his Government colleague in England, Neil Macfarlane, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, when the boards were created and he gave a clear assurance that there would be no privatisation. Yet, two years later, another ministerial colleague said that the boards were perfectly placed for such privatisation. Does the Secretary of State understand the scepticism when such clear assurances were given in the past and were clearly broken?

Mr. Lang: The assurances that I am in a position to give are regarding water and sewerage in Scotland.
May I trace some of the history of the matter? As long ago as 1991, we consulted on the matter and we indicated that the new organisations for water and sewerage may need to be separated from local authorities. In June 1992, we appointed financial consultants to secure advice on the basis of which we framed a number of optional proposals, which we included in our consultation paper published in November that year. That paper canvassed eight options in an entirely evenhanded way. The fact that it took longer to explain some of those options than it took for others is entirely irrelevant to the underlying attitudes of the Government and relates solely to the novelty or the complicated nature of the proposals being canvassed.
The option that we decided on was similar to option D in that consultation paper. Having listened to the views that were submitted, we specifically rejected the privatisation option and chose instead three publicly owned water authorities. We were told at the time that it would be the acid test of the Government's ability to listen to public opinion in Scotland whether we chose a separate Scottish solution from that which had been chosen south of the border. We met that acid test. Indeed, the solution that we brought forward thereafter was welcomed by the Opposition a year ago. They even claimed credit for the fact that they had secured a success in persuading us not to privatise Scottish water. What a difference a year makes.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State knows that the Scottish nationalists were not that gullible a year ago. With respect, he has not answered the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). My hon. Friend made the obvious analogy that assurances were given south of the border which were


subsequently broken by Ministers. There has been some speculation over the past few days about the Secretary of State's position in Scotland. Can he tell us the most recent estimate of the opinion on water privatisation held by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? For example, if that hon. Member became Secretary of State for Scotland, could this Secretary of State be absolutely certain that his successor would hold the same opinion?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is being frivolous. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, like all other members of the Government, strongly and fully supports the proposals that the Government have brought forward. What we have brought forward—

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Lang: I must make some further progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I know that the House is keen to make progress.
We have brought forward a solution that specifically meets Scottish requirements and that is durable for the long term. As some references to the history of water and sewerage have been made in the debate, it is worth pointing out that at the end of the second world war, there were no fewer than 210 water authorities in Scotland. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is right to point to the civic pride with which the city fathers in various cities around Scotland and the provosts and councils in various towns took pride in the quality of their water and the provision that they made for it. I understand and respect that. My own great-grandfather was provost of Greenock about 100 years ago and I have no doubt that he took the same pride in the quality of the water there.
In 1946, with the Water (Scotland) Act, introduced by a Labour Government, central Government took powers that were more far-reaching and dramatic than anything that we have contemplated since then to rationalise and improve the handling and the delivery of water services for the future. That Act first provided the basis for most of the powers and duties of local authorities today. In 1967, there was a 13–board structure. In 1975, the present structure came into being. As recently as 1973, there were no fewer than 234 separate sewerage authorities.
We are not proposing some dramatic and sudden change in something that has been in position and unchanged for one and a half centuries. Rather, it is a further progression down the road of rationalisation and improved efficiency which dates back to former times, with the major legislation of the Labour Government of 1946 forming one of the most pivotal landmarks along the way.

Mr. George Robertson: The one continuing thread which goes right through that century and a half and through the period when the Secretary of State's great-grandfather was provost of Greenock is absolutely fundamental to the debate. Those water authorities, however numerous they were, whatever form they took, were run by local councillors, who were elected by the people and were removable by the people. Does not he understand that that is what the people of Scotland are saying today, as they have said over all those years? They are saying: let control of water and of all commodities be left in the hands of people who are close and accountable to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Lang: The point that I have just made to the hon. Gentleman is that it was a Labour Government, in 1946, who took the power to rationalise and reorganise and establish their clear authority over the handling of water services.
Let me emphasise the nature of what we are discussing. We are not only talking of a service, but about a substantial industry that employs some 6,000 people in Scotland. That industry supplies about 2.3 million cu m of water each day. It services some 2.2 million households. The water is supplied through some 28,000 miles of water mains. It is collected from some 800 or more sources, including 350 lochs and reservoirs, and there are some 17,500 miles of public sewers. There are 603 or more water treatment plants and more than 900 sewage treatment works.
Sewage treatment produces sludge-80,000 dry tonnes in 1990, which is expected to rise to 140,000 dry tonnes by 1999. That is a major industry which would incur colossal expenses in future development and maintenance and therefore it is vital that it is handled in the most efficient way.

Mr. Michael Connarty: rose—

Mr. Lang: I must make further progress and then the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to take part in the debate. I want to emphasise the scale of the industry and the increase in expenditure that is necessary to upgrade it if we are to meet our targets for the high quality of water and sewerage services that we now rightly regard as important.
I must point out to the House that capital expenditure provision for 1996–97 will be almost 80 per cent. higher than it was at the beginning of the decade. Present plans provide some £740 million of capital provision for the three years to 1996–97, but about £5 billion is needed in the next 15 years or so—some £2 billion for water services and £3 billion for sewerage. Of that £5 billion, around half will be needed to meet the requirements of EC directives and the balance to provide water and sewerage services to housing and industrial developments and to maintain and improve the existing infrastructure.
We are talking about a major industry which must be run efficiently. We need to take the opportunity afforded by the reform of local government to put in place for water and sewerage the structure that is best tailored to meet the needs of those services, the structure that will most readily accomplish the massive investment programme that lies ahead and the one that will do so in a way that gives best value for money to the customer. That is the structure that we are proposing: three new water authorities.
I was asked earlier why there should be three new water authorities. The answer is that that number will provide the most efficient system and the most coherent and comprehensive size of unit. The proposal is based on advice that we have received from our consultants. We need larger units to capture the economies of scale that will be so important in addressing a large investment programme at least cost.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that we were over-centralising. I have to tell him that we are not a Government who are keen to centralise—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but centralisation and control are fundamental to socialism and are the exact antithesis of our philosophy. Our philosophy is one of decentralisation and that is inherent throughout


our local government reforms.The exception is the water and sewerage service, where we believe that the overriding need to improve the efficiency of the system requires the establishment of three large units. Not for us a separate Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh to draw powers into the centre from local authorities in Scotland.
The trend of water and sewerage services over the past century or more has been to form larger units to exploit increasingly sophisticated technology.Today is no exception and we would miss an important opportunity to take a further step along that road if we were to perpetuate the current area divisions out of regard, understandable though that may be, for the record of the regional and island councils.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about the islands. The practical alternative to inclusion in the northern authority is to establish island water authorities legally quite separate from the councils.That proposal was discussed in detail with representatives of the islands, including the convenors of Orkney and Western Isles, earlier this year.We listened to those arguments carefully and with some sympathy. However, the implications for charges if the islands were separate authorities are severe.That is particularly so in the Western Isles, where the price of being a separate authority is likely to be more than double what it could be within the northern authority and in Orkney, the difference could be more than 50 per cent.
I know that the island authorities are anxious to know whether, if they become part of the northern authority, they would be guaranteed to benefit from a smoothing of prices across the northern area. However, I repeat what was said in Committee: we would fully expect the new authorities to move rapidly to uniform pricing. The Bill now also stipulates that the needs of rural areas should be paid regard to by the new authorities and the Secretary of State and the membership of the customers council area committees has been increased from a maximum of eight to a maximum of 12. That will allow a better spread of representation, including from the islands.
I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to ensure that an islands representative is a member of the northern authority. I am sure that the claims of any suitable candidate from the islands will be considered very seriously. However, it would be wrong to pre-empt the choice of members in the way that the amendment seeks. The paramount requirement in a small membership is to get the best people for the job.
The hon. Member for Hamilton asked why our plan was the only plan open for Scotland's water and sewerage. It is not the only plan open for the future of water and sewerage in Scotland, but it is the best one. The Government have considered very carefully all the alternatives. We have consulted and considered. We have decided on our policy and we are now asking Parliament to support it. We do that believing that efficiency and cost are vital for those very significant and large industries in Scotland. We are proposing a Scottish solution for the future of those important Scottish industries. I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. James Wallace: I associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the background against which this debate takes place. On behalf of my party in Scotland, I extend to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and, through him,

to his party and the family of John Smith, our deepest sympathy at their loss. John Smith was a great Scot and his contribution to Scottish politics, as well as to British politics, was immense. As has already been said many times, his loss is felt across the party divide.
I understand that the hon. Member for Hamilton also referred to the wife of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is unwell. I was born and brought up in Dumfrieshire and I have known Lady Monro for many years. I hope that our good wishes can be conveyed to the hon. Member for Dumfries.
5.45 pm
It would be wrong if we did not fully explore and thrash out the important arguments when we debate the future of our water and sewerage services. Those services have been the key issue in Scottish politics over the past 12 months or more. The Secretary of State said that the issue was not one of privatisation and, as he is a right hon.Gentleman, we must take him at his word.However, he is in no position to say what a future Administration might do.
If people are afraid of something in politics, that is a reality. It is not something that we can discount. People fear that, as a result of the Bill, we are placing our water and sewerage services in a position where they can be more readily privatised in future by a future Administration who may have a change of heart from the current Government's policy. If those services were to remain in local authority hands, that threat would at least be one stage removed. The fear that I have described cannot simply be blamed on speeches made by Opposition politicians.
I have always tried to be very careful about what I have said. No doubt I will be tried if I have, at any stage, misrepresented the position. However, the position was set out quite clearly in the Strathclyde regional referendum. The Government propose to set up three boards which will be appointed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: They will be quangos.

Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) rightly points out, they will be quangos.
The people of Strathclyde overwhelmingly voted against that proposal. While the percentage of people who voted against the proposal was exceptionally high and not surprising, the percentage of people who actually returned their ballot papers was perhaps the most striking point about the referendum. Those people have been angered because the Government have refused to heed the message that those people delivered in the referendum.
The people in Strathclyde and elsewhere in Scotland voted again on 5 May and they gave the Government their verdict on that important regional council service. The Government again tried to use the excuse that people were voting on national issues. It was a national issue, but it was a national issue about a regional council function. It was not unreasonable for people to take that into account when they cast their votes.
In the aftermath of those elections, I heard the Secretary of State say that he thought the verdict of the Scottish people on 5 May was one of not proven. Of course, "not proven" is a matter of current political debate. The Secretary of State must know, as well as anyone knows, that not proven is a verdict of acquittal.
However, in no way was the Tory party in Scotland acquitted on 5 May. The Tories were found guilty by the


jury by a large majority. If I may say so, at some risk of extending the legal metaphor, they have been given a deferred sentence. The jury and the court will meet again on 9 June. If the Secretary of State has not learnt his lesson and has not committed himself to good behaviour, a suitable penalty will surely be imposed then.
Regrettably, it seems from the Secretary of State's responses today that he has not learnt the lessons. He maintains that his proposal for three quangos is, in his words, the best solution.
It has been the position of my party throughout that the responsibility for water and sewerage services in Scotland should remain in the hands of people who are democratically elected and accountable to their electorate. That is why we support the amendment to that effect. I accept that if we are changing local government boundaries, it might not necessarily be efficient or sensible to have as many local water and sewerage authorities as there are going to be new local councils. However, if joint boards comprising elected councillors are an acceptable way to run our police and fire services, why are they not an acceptable way in which to run our water and sewerage services?
The Secretary of State was on weak ground when he tried to give us his history lesson. He referred to what a Labour Government did in 1946, but he missed the obvious point—which was put to him, but which he refused to accept—that, throughout all the reorganisations, authority and responsibility has rested with those who are electorally accountable. He said that water and sewage had to be handled in the most efficient way by people with the most experience.
I have yet to hear anyone on the Government Front Bench suggest that our local authorities—our regional islands councils—have done anything other than discharge their responsibilities with regard to water and sewage in a responsible and efficient way. Who are the people in Scotland who will be able to run an efficient water and sewerage service? They are all the employees of the existing regional and islands councils. They are the people who have the expertise and experience which have been built up over many years.
Nor have the Government made it clear how the new water authorities will have an easier financial route to raise the money that is needed. I understand that the strict Treasury rules will apply to the new water authorities—because they will be within the public sector—as much as they will apply to local authorities. It should be remembered that since 1989, our local authorities have had to have separate water accounts—indeed, they have managed those accounts—and most of the investment and loan charges have been covered by charges directly on the customer through meter charges, originally through the community water charge and now through council tax payments, and through the non-domestic water rate.
Our argument is that that should continue. Indeed, if something must be sacrificed, surely it is better if the Treasury rules are sacrificed, rather than local democracy. We have not yet had any suggestion of why that course cannot be adopted, other than the fact that the Treasury rules are there and, because they are there, we must abide by them. Perhaps it is time that we examined the merit of the Treasury rules.
I should like the Secretary of State to give us his estimate of the amount that will have to invested in water and sewerage services to bring them up to EC requirements —and, indeed, what the time span will be. I understand that the time span has lengthened somewhat since the argument was put forward for adapting and changing the new structure of our water services.
Why is it that, unlike the water authorities in England and Wales, Scottish water authorities have not had their debt written off? That would ease their position considerably. Nor have the Scottish water authorities had the benefit of a green dowry. That raises the question whether large-scale water users—industrial water users —in England and Wales have been put at a competitive advantage to large-scale water users in Scotland, which have not had the benefit of such a massive capital investment.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has clearly considered the question of the islands areas. Indeed, he admitted to having some sympathy with it. Before this part of the Bill is debated in another place, I hope that he will think again because there are important arguments for the islands areas to be treated separately. My ideal position is that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in Committee—keeping those areas within the control and responsibility of local authorities, the islands councils.
If that is not possible, I would argue for a separate water board for each of the islands areas because we would get a better integrated approach if we had a separate authority. After all, there is no link with any part of the North of Scotland water authority, other than the sea itself. If we are looking at a development involving water services, sewerage services, roads, harbours and quarries, it is obvious that an integrated approach, where we can have the other existing responsibilities in the islands, would make it much easier to plan and develop water and sewerage services.
My concern is that if the North of Scotland water authority has a target for the percentage of houses that it must reach and is faced with a proposal to provide a water and sewerage scheme for a small housing development on the western side of Shetland, which might serve only those houses, and a scheme for a housing development in Aberdeen, which would serve 60 houses, the Aberdeen scheme would inevitably take precedence. However, until the water and sewerage facilities are put in place, it may not be possible to proceed with a much-needed housing development—with very few houses, but nevertheless an important one for the community.
If that means that there is a slightly higher price to pay —I should like to see the detailed figures to discover how the Secretary of State comes up with 100 per cent. more in the case of the Western Isles and 50 per cent. more in the case of Orkney—and if we will not get the service at the level price, we must ask whether it is a price worth paying because we will not get the level price for some time. The Secretary of State said that he hoped that the authorities would move to it quickly, but there is the implication—and, of course, the provision for it is in the Bill—that there can be differential pricing, including pricing based on localities. There is a serious possibility that not only will we not get priority, but we will have to pay a higher price, compared to other parts of the north of Scotland area. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter.
I also hope that the Secretary of State will accept my amendment, which would oblige him to appoint a member from the islands area. It is all very well for him to say that he has it in mind to do so if a suitable candidate appears. There is nothing better than obliging him to do so. I am sure that if he does not appoint a member from the islands area, he will always find some plausible excuse for why he has not been able to do so on this occasion.
With regard to the western Scotland area and the many islands there, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyle and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is also concerned that the expertise of someone with some experience of the delivery of water services in the islands areas should be used in terms of the customers council and the water authority.
The House will note that there are amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends which would require those who are appointed by the Secretary of State to the water authority or the customers council to make a political declaration—either a direct declaration of membership of a political party or a declaration stating whether any financial contribution has been given to a political party recently. That would be a welcome step in opening up quangos.
It is not simply a question of quangos being established; there is an unhealthy scepticism that those who are appointed to them are not always appointed on the basis of their expertise but because they happen to wear the right party colour. Hon. Members are obliged to make many declarations—obviously, our political affiliations are already known. It would not be a bad thing if we knew the political lights by which those who will be appointed to the quangos are guided.
Finally, I must make it clear that on this Bench we do not have knee-jerk reactions and say that we will immediately want to repeal anything that is done. However, after listening to all the arguments, it is certainly our conclusion that if we have any part of, or influence in, Government after the next election, it would be our intention to find ways of restoring water and sewerage services in Scotland into the hands of locally elected and accountable people.

Mr. John McAllion: It is interesting to note the Tory Members representing England who have listened to most of the debate. Obviously, one of them is here because he is a deputy Government Whip and must be here. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is here because he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland and he must also be here. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was here for more than one hour because the Tory Benches are so empty that it is one of the few quiet places where hon. Members can read in the House of Commons.
It will be interesting to note that when we vote on the new clauses and amendments, out of every opening in the buildings and the palace of Westminster will pour Tory Members who have not listened to the debate and who do not know what the issues are about, but who will guarantee that the amendments and new clauses tabled by the majority parties in Scotland are defeated and that the Government's proposals, which have been rejected overwhelmingly by the Scottish people, will be passed by the House. If ever I have seen a case for a Scottish Parliament, it is the debate taking place in the House tonight.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his customary courtesy. Where are all the absent Scottish Labour Members of Parliament?

Mr. McAllion: I can guarantee that if the Bill were being debated in a Scottish Parliament by people directly elected by and accountable to the Scottish people on Scottish issues, the Chamber would be packed and every Member would be held to account by the Scottish people. The first requirement of any democracy is that where a Bill only affects the people of a single country, it should be accountable to the people of that country and should not be decided by hon. Members from any other part of the UK.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Where are their lot?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Seated interventions are not helpful. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye later, he should be a little quieter now.

Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State said that it was not a part of the Government's proposals for Scotland to privatise Scotland's water. He said that they had consulted on the issue and, having consulted the Scottish people, they had listened. Does he really expect us to believe that? That comes from the same Government who consulted on the poll tax and, having listened to the Scottish people's objections, went ahead and legislated for the poll tax.
6 pm
Does not the Secretary of State understand that, on Thursday 5 May, there was a massive consultation in Scotland on his proposals to introduce three new super-quangos, and that his party got less than 14 per cent. of the vote? Does not he understand that the people of Scotland have said no to the three super-quangos? If he had really consulted and listened to the people of Scotland, the Bill would have been scrapped and we would have gone back to a system where regional councils are the water authorities in Scotland—the way it should be.
Nobody believes the Government when they say that they do not intend privatising Scotland's water industries. The same Tory Government continually preaches to Opposition Members that this is a unitary Parliament and a unitary state, and that every part of the UK is treated exactly the same. If privatisation is good enough for England and Wales, the message is that, in the long run, it will be good enough for Scotland as well.
If people in England and Wales can be disconnected from the domestic water supply, sooner or later people in Scotland will be disconnected also. That is the lesson which one draws from the unitary Parliament and unitary state which is supported on the Government Benches, and is supported there only.
For that reason, nobody believes for a minute the Government's protestations on the issues. The Government are not retreating from the principle of privatisation, but there has been a tactical retreat. The Government, under pressure in Scotland, have been forced to withdraw. But when the circumstances allow, they will be back with a vengeance and will be looking to privatise the Scottish water industry. Everybody in Scotland knows that—even the Government's own supporters.

Mr. Gallie: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Conservative Members believe in the Parliament that represents the Union, but which recognises that there are


different legal systems in Scotland and England and that there are different customs between the nations? Is not that one of the strengths of a Unionist Parliament?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman—as always—is compeletely unconvincing in trying to intervene on an hon. Member.
Opposition Members remember what happened in England and Wales. What was the first stage towards privatisation there? Water was taken away from local authority control, and quangos were set up as the water authorities. A number of years later, when the situation had quietened down, those quangos were privatised. That pattern will be repeated exactly in Scotland if the Government are allowed to remain in office and to carry out their long-term plan for the Scottish people.
I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and I remember that the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made it absolutely clear that water in Scotland should be privatised. I know that, deep down, the Minister believes that water should be privatised, although he will not say so publicly. We know that every Conservative Member representing English and Welsh constituencies believes that there should be privatisation in Scotland, because they have accepted it in their own constituencies. Why should they not accept it for Scotland? The Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that he wants water in Scotland to be privatised.
Therefore, we do not believe for a second the protestations of the Secretary of State or Scottish Office Ministers. They may say, "Us? No, we would never dream of it." But they do dream of it. Their innermost hope is that, in the long run, they will not have to use public money to fund the investment that is required in the Scottish water industry in the next 10 or 15 years, and that the private sector will come in and supply that money for them. The private sector will supply that money only if it can get the profits back out of the water industry, and it can only do that under privatisation. Nobody is fooled by the Government's arguments.
I was not impressed in the least by the hon. Members for Ayr and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch)—who have at least sat through most of the debate—and the pantomime which they had between them. They tried to suggest that there were fewer quangos in Scotland now than ever before. Hon. Members know fine well that if the Bill gets on the statue book, more people will be appointed to quangos in Scotland than we will have elected councillors in Scotland. That is the state to which the Conservative party has reduced Scotland. It is undermining every aspect of democracy in our country.
There is no democracy in this House or at local government level. We have quangos, centralisation and authoritarian decisions which are taken here by people who do not represent the Scottish view. The Conservative party wonders why it does so badly at elections in Scotland. If it were prepared to listen to the Scottish people, it might understand why it does so badly.
The hon. Member for Ayr thinks that, in a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference with a 10 or 15-minute speech, he convinced Tory activists of the strength of the Government's case. The hon. Gentleman has had two years since 1992 to convince his own

constituents, and I am sure that I do not need to remind him of the result in Ayr in the Strathclyde referendum on water. Ninety-three per cent. of his constituents voted against the Government's proposals. He supports those proposals and tried to sell them to the people of Ayr during that period. He failed to convince them that the proposals are right.
For the Secretary of State to tell us that his proposals are the best possible for Scotland is absolute nonsense. It is not for the Secretary of State to tell the people of Scotland what is best for them. It is not even for me or for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to tell the people what is best for them. The people tell us what is best for them, and that is how democracy works. But so divorced from democracy has the Tory party become that it no longer recognises when it has been completely undemocratic and has done things which, in the long run, can only destroy the Tory party in Scotland.
I speak in support of new clauses 1, 15 and 20 because they seek to re-establish regional councils, through bringing together the new, single-tier authorities into joint boards. I do not see any difference between the Scottish National party's amendments and the new clauses proposed by my hon. Friends. Under the joint board provisions, those will be bodies corporate which are covered by statute. Therefore, under the requirements placed on bodies corporate such as joint boards, it will not be the Secretary of State who appoints people to those boards but the constituent councils. In reality, the SNP amendment and the new clauses tabled by Labour are the same.
In the circumstances, the idea that joint boards could be the new water authorities is not the best that can be achieved for Scotland, but it is the best that can be achieved through this place. The best would be that the Government for once actually listened to the Scottish people, and what the people are saying came across loud and clear on Thursday 5 May. The Conservative party was reduced not to fourth place, but to fifth place in Scotland—if one includes the independents—with less than 14 per cent. of the vote.
I and the hon. Member for Tayside, North come from Tayside, and the Conservative party held Tayside beyond challenge, it was thought, in the early 1980s. When I came on to the council in 1984, the Tories held 28 of the 46 seats, and there was no party within touching distance of them. Ten years on, the Tories hold four seats out of the 46 in Tayside regional council and they received one in five of the votes cast in the Tayside regional elections. An area that was once regarded as the jewel in the Tory crown in Scotland is now almost absolutely anti-Tory. Even the Tory councillors in Tayside do not agree with what the Government are doing to the people of Scotland.
The Conservative party is so remote from the Scottish people that those people go to the ballot box with one view in mind—"How do we get at this Government?" In some areas, that means voting for the SNP, while in others it means voting for the Liberal Democrats or Labour. Wherever the opposition to the Tories is, that is where the Scots go and that is how they vote.
If Conservative Members cannot see that, they are terminally in decline. I look forward to the day when every single one of them who represents a Scottish constituency is wiped from the face of the electoral map in Scotland, and we can have a Scottish Parliament in which we will decide things for ourselves.

Mr. Dalyell: It may not be entirely their fault, but do Ministers realise how much senior Ministers in our system are deferred to and become cocooned? I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises how doubly friendless he is on this issue.
First, the right hon. Gentleman is friendless among those who understand the water and sewerage industries. I went to a meeting yesterday of the Lothian purification board in Livingston when water experts from right around Scotland were present. He did not have friends there, other than the loyal representatives of the Scottish Office. When people such as Dr. Jean Balfour say how terrible the policy is, it confirms the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
I think that I was the only Opposition Member who, rightly or wrongly, did not sign the "Claim of Right". I have a particular political history, which entitles me to say this to the Secretary of State. In view of the election results and the fact that the Scottish people can see that such a huge percentage are against water privatisation, which is an emotional, central and important issue, if he cheerfully overrides those views—saying that they are of no account —it will go far beyond water. The issue will become the attitude of people in Scotland towards the Union. Because of political history I, of all people, am empowered to tell him that if he goes ahead he must not start lamenting when the Union turns sour.

Mr. Graham: I was born in Glasgow. When I was a young boy, there were wells in every part of Glasgow and if people felt like a drink they just had to turn the water on —it was free. We have all seen animals—cats, dogs or whatever—supping the free water.
I also lived in Govan when I was a kid—in Elder park. There was a rumour that people became Govanites if they fell in the water in the park. It was a great honour to be called a Govanite. If someone falls in the water there now, under the Tory proposals, they would not only get a scolding from their mother but they would probably have to pay for the water that they used in the pond.
I am astounded at the Government's reluctance to accept the referendum that was held by the people of Strathclyde and their elected members and adjudicated by a neutral body. The figures that I am holding here are the result of one of the most democratic decisions ever reached by a huge proportion of the population of Strathclyde; 1,194,667 people voted no to the Government's proposals.
The Government have tried to run roughshod over the opinions of those people, as if to say that 1.2 million people are kidding, or that they have no brains and canna get it right—as if to say that the Government are the only ones to get it right. That is absolute nonsense.
I see that the Secretary of State has a pencil in his mouth. Perhaps because of this Government, some day when he is putting a glass of water to his mouth it might cost him about 10p.
If the referendum had taken place throughout Scotland the floodgates would have been opened. I am sure that the result would have been the same throughout Britain and that a higher percentage would probably have been against in the highlands, which are awash with water. The people there certainly would not want it to be privatised in the fashion that the Government propose.
I am appalled that the Government are continually trying to water down the Strathclyde results. They are

trying to push them under the carpet and it will cause one great fountain. A huge eruption will take place at the general election.
6.15 pm
I do not call those three bodies quangos, Madam Deputy Speaker. I call them "langoes". Do you know what the headlines will be in the Scottish papers? "Lang goes—drowned by the people of Scotland." I am sure that that is what will happen.
Earlier, we heard the Secretary of State say that there was no way that they would privatise water and we have heard other hon. Members repeating old statements to the House. I will remind him. In December 1984 Neil Macfarlane, then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment said:
We have absolutely no intention of privatising the water industry".—[Official Report, 19 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 457.]
By February 1986, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, was telling the House that the Government were ready to privatise water. In December 1984 it was, "No privatisation", by February 1986 it was "Yes, privatisation" and by 1990, it was privatised.
Last week, in an interview with The Courier and Advertiser, the Prime Minister did not rule out water privatisation in Scotland completely. He said:
It's not going to be privatised in this Parliament. It's not going to be privatised for a long time. It's gone into public bodies. Whether we will ever return to that in the future we don't know. No one ever says never in politics if they are wise, but there are no plans whatsoever to privatise water in Scotland".
Is that the same sort of promise as Neil Macfarlane's promise that the Government had no intention of privatising English water? It is no wonder that the Scottish people do not believe the Government when they promise that they have no plans to privatise Scottish water.
We are sick and tired of seeing Government promises broken. One broken promise that got my goat was when they said that they wouldna increase prescriptions charges. Look at the price of prescriptions now, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a punishment—an absolute evil—to be ill under this Tory Government. Their punishment of putting VAT on fuel is horrific. They do not understand the world that we live in.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should know that, under the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution, no Parliament can bind a succeeding Parliament to anything other than matters within the jurisdiction of the European Union. Thus far, water does not come under the European Union.

Mr. Graham: I find that hilarious. We have had Conservative government for nearly 15 years. They have kidded the folk on at every election, saying "We'll not do this" or "We'll not do that" and then they have done it. They said, "The lady's not for turning" and they said, "We'll go on and on." I am sick and tired of it. I do not have water on my brain, but perhaps they have. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes it when the Government say that they will not privatise water in Scotland. They are up a gum tree—the biggest gum tree that has ever grown.
I want the Secretary of State to dump this Bill. He should not foist what is happening in other parts of the world on to us. We have an efficient water service—a service into which local authorities have channelled their


energies, to make it one of the best and cheapest in the country. They have given us water that we can drink proudly and boast about.
I will bring you a glass of water from my house, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would probably have to pay 30p a glass for it, but I do not pay that in Scotland, where every woman, child and elderly person can turn on the tap and have a damn good drink. They are not paying through the nose or into the private coffers of some entrepreneur who has decided to buy a few shares in water. Water is owned by us, and drunk by us, and I want it to be kept by us.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for breaking through the sense of melancholy and sadness which pervades the Opposition Benches just now. Clearly, there is a sense of shock on this side of the House, but we have to come to grips with the issues. We have to tell the Government that this type of legislation is not tolerable and that they will not be allowed to get away with it in Scotland or anywhere else.
The Secretary of State for Scotland prefaced his remarks by saying that we had to return to the issues of state in Scotland today and consider this controversial issue. I have news for the Secretary of State for Scotland: this is not a remotely controversial issue. It is one of very few issues about which it would be impossible to start an argument in the streets, households, pubs, clubs or anywhere else in Scotland today. There is no support anywhere in Scotland for the proposal to take the water and sewerage industries out of the control of democratically accountable local authorities.
We all knew that. If the Secretary of State required proof of it, he received that proof from Strathclyde regional council. In a 71.5 per cent. turnout of electors in Strathclyde, 97.2 per cent. gave a very clear answer to a very simple, straightforward question. There was nothing obtuse or convoluted about the question on the ballot paper that was put before the people of Strathclyde.
It explained what the Government wanted to do. There was no mention of privatisation; it was simply explained that the Government wanted to transfer control of the water industry from democratically accountable local councillors to nominated quangos. What did the people think of that? Some 97.2 per cent. said that they wanted their water and sewerage industries to remain under the control of their local authorities.
Frankly, the result did not surprise me. What surprised me was the massive turnout of electors. I am amazed that even this Government think that they can shrug it off. As Sir Michael Hirst would say, it was a "poke in the eye" for the Government. That is how he dismissed the recent regional election results. How many more pokes in the eye do the Government require before they understand what is going on?
I have no doubt that the result would have been exactly the same if the question had been put to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Lothian region. It is no wonder, because the service is provided very well by democratically accountable local authorities and their staff in every part of Scotland. People value their right to influence decisions in this essential industry.
I am very proud that an elected local councillor from my constituency, John Ross from Musselburgh, recently took the chair of the water and drainage committee of Lothian regional council following the recent elections. He and his colleagues, elected by the people of the Lothian region, have a mandate to take decisions which affect that industry. He conducts surgeries so that people from his ward and other parts of the Lothian region will be able to go along and say, "We don't like the way in which you are managing these services; do something about it." That is what happens at the moment. There is plenty of evidence that the water and sewerage industries are being operated in a responsive, as well as responsible, manner.
What is the alternative offered by the Secretary of State for Scotland? He proposes that there be three monster quangos, nominated and appointed by him personally. They will not be accountable to the people of Scotland in any sense of the word. Will they hold surgeries for people to come to see them? There is no chance of that. They will hold meetings behind closed doors like the rest of the quangos in Scotland and they will not be accountable to anyone.
We have been through all the issues over and over again in Committee and they have been discussed plenty in Scotland. Whatever else this issue may be, it is certainly not controversial. There is no support from any quarter for what the Secretary of State proposes.
If they are established, the quangos will be unjustifiable and intolerable. I agree, for once, with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that it raises a particularly dangerous constitutional issue. If we impose this sort of rubbish legislation on Scotland, it raises fundamental questions about the credibility of the Union and the Parliament.
I welcome, above all, the statement made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in his capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that, if the legislation is forced through and the quangos are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, one of my hon. Friend's first acts upon assuming his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Scotland following the next general election will be to demand the resignation of the quangocrats so that we can replace them with directly elected local councillors. That is what the people want, and that is what they will have.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that we are short of time and that quite a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
It is absolutely disgraceful that we are debating an issue that takes democratic control away from the people of Scotland and that the House and the Scottish people are being misled.
I do not know how any Government could talk about privatising boards, quangos or any other system after looking at the evidence from down south—the disconnection of meters, the extortionate charges and so on. All those systems have failed; they have created only misery. I remember very well being told in debate that the private sector would invest the money needed to provide the services. We know from the media where the money went and who invested it. The private sector has not paid for the services; the people who are paying the bills have paid for them. Charges have increased by possibly as much as 70 per cent.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said that, as far as they were concerned, the problems could be solved by this system. No one wants quangos or privatisation in Scotland, but the Government never paid any heed to that at all. It is remiss of the Secretary of State for Scotland to mislead the House as he did today. He said that there would be a great deal of investment as far as local government water and sewerage industries were concerned. That is nonsense, and the Secretary of State for Scotland knows it.
I will take the right hon. Gentleman back through the years to a paper that he knows very well. In 1991 the Clyde river purification board and the sewerage department of the Strathclyde regional council formed a working party. The Secretary of State for Scotland was well informed about the proposals that were put forward at that time. The working party talked about a number of schemes and a plan that would stretch over 15 years and cost £920 million. It maintained that the profile of the plan would be £42 million in 1994, £90 million in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and so on to the year 2003. The amount would then be reduced to £55 million in 2004.
Eight projects were proposed. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ayr has left the Chamber, because his project in Ayr was affected, which is important. As a result of the lack of response from the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office, the Dalmuir sewage works will be delayed until 2001; the Ayr sewerage scheme will be delayed until 1999. Those eight projects will cost £102 million, £41 million, £59 million, £350,000, £1.15 million, £1.05 million, £225,000 and £1.5 million. Only one project has been started—the Kelvin valley project.
6.30 pm
The Secretary of State knows about those works that the EEC asked us to implement, the incentives that it was going to give and the directives that were issued in a 15–year period, with a deadline date in 1997 that will never be met. The Scottish Office Environment Department sent a letter in January 1991 and another in July 1992, when the warning bells were sounded by the River Clyde purification board. It said that it could never implement any of the directives because there was a shortfall of £8 million. The Secretary of State has known that for some time.
Let us suppose that the shortfall of £8 million in one year continues throughout the 15-year plan. The document, "Investing for the Future" emphasised that the private sector would then come in and give the money. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland never mentioned the private sector and its investment, because very little investment is coming from the private sector, and I shall tell hon. Members the reason. It is a result of the referendum, which was a result of the opposition of Labour Members to boards, quangos or any type of privatisation.
I shall not forget the time when the Prime Minister, at Question Time in the House, said that, yes, the Government would privatise Scotland's water. Every Member of the House knows that, unless that investment is forthcoming, we can forget about Upper Clyde estuary improvements; we can forget about Scottish coastal waters and bathing waters. There is no way that we shall ever meet the deadline and there is no way that the Government will supply the money.
Every local authority has a responsibility under the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 and the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 to make water wholesome for drinking for the public.
We already know how many people oppose the proposals for quangos and the dishonesty. We could go back to 1992, when The Herald published an editorial entitled, "Yet Another Fine Mess". The proposals were called "Laurel and Hardy" proposals.

Mr. McAllion: The minority in Scotland.

Mr. Wray: The Government.
The Strathclyde regional council sent a letter to the Scottish Office, saying that the estimated cost was £45 million for water and £45 million for sewerage. Also, £60 million per year would be needed to implement the EC requirements. The letter also mentioned the shortfall. The 15–year plan would take about £750 million, and £900 million would be needed to implement the requirements of the Government. The council also said that the total sewerage bill would be £990 million, but that £1,300 million would be needed to implement the EEC directives.
The Secretary of State told us at great length how much would be done, but he never told us about the total expenditure and that he will never be able to meet that target.
I shall give the House one piece of information that is relevant and important to Scotland. It is said that the total bill that must be met for Scotland's water is £4.5 billion in a 15-year period, and the Government have proposed to give only £3 billion. That leaves a shortfall of £1.5 billion. When the River Clyde purification board and the sewerage department wrote to the Scottish Office, they were told that Strathclyde regional council would be responsible and that they would have to take the money from current revenue or cuts in other services or capital receipts from selling off assets. That is important because, in answer to a question, the Secretary of State for Scotland told me that the boards will have the responsibility for selling off the assets when they take over, and that that is the way that they will make them pay.
In the last letter that was sent, the policy and resources committee of Strathclyde regional council asked the sewerage department to give it the minimum legal requirement over a five-year period. It sent the estimated cost, and the Scottish Office was notified that it was £500 million. The council was told to cut it to £225 million. The result was a delay in 53 proposed schemes of from four years to three months.
The Secretary of State for Scotland never told the Opposition how the plans for the sewerage and water departments were being wrecked. The type of revenue that has been proposed and the allocation that is supposed to be coming from the Scottish Office will never meet the requirements. We shall meet those requirements only by keeping water in public control.

Mr. Salmond: As often happens, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) put his finger on one of the buttons of the debate when he mentioned the admission by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that one Parliament cannot bind another Parliament. That is absolutely true. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tayside, North holds himself for a few seconds, he may intervene later.
Obviously one Secretary of State cannot bind another Secretary of State. We know, as I said earlier, that there is speculation about the Secretary of State's position. He may or may not be Secretary of State for Scotland in a month's time. If it holds true that one Parliament cannot bind


another, it also holds true that the current Secretary of State cannot bind the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), or the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) if the honour fell on him. He could not bind the hon. Member for Tayside, North, if he was called to serve as Secretary of State in a few weeks' time.
It is absolutely reasonable for Opposition Members—

Mr. Wallace: That would be very unreasonable.

Mr. Salmond: That would not be absolutely reasonable, but it is certainly reasonable for Opposition Members to ask—given the history of the assurances that were given south of the border in 1984, which were then transformed two years later into an intention to privatise south of the border—why on earth should not that happen in Scotland in 1994, and why cannot that be translated, as one Secretary of State cannot bind another, into something quite different in 1996? Opposition Members do not need a crystal ball to fear that the measure will facilitate privatisation. All we need to do is to look at the book south of the border.
It was also reasonable for Opposition Members to point out what the Prime Minister said in March 1993. That was before the consultation period on Scottish water, but it also showed clearly that the Prime Minister's own mind was that he was sympathetic to privatisation. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde read a more recent quotation from The Courier and Advertiser, in which the Prime Minister said that no one ever says never in politics. Usually when people say never, they mean that certainly they will do it at some time in the future, but it would be too embarrassing to admit it now.
A more recent quotation comes from the magazine supplement of the Scottish Sunday Express last Sunday. Mr. Bruce Anderson, the biographer and, I understand, confidant of the Prime Minister, which makes him one of a small, select band at present, wrote an article advocating the privatisation of Scottish water.

Mr. Lang: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head. That article appeared last Sunday.

Mr. Lang: I did not wish to put the hon. Gentleman off his stride. I wanted to indicate not that the journalist in question did not say that but that he was wrong.

Mr. Salmond: The journalist was wrong to advocate the privatisation of Scottish water. The point that I was making was that Mr. Anderson is rumoured to be close to the Prime Minister. He is certainly his biographer and I think that he is a confidant. Therefore, the Secretary of State cannot pretend to us that the privatisation launch has been eradicated from the Conservative Benches. Given that we have already explained that he cannot commit his successor or a future Parliament, what assurance do we have that privatisation will not rear its ugly head again when the political temperature is different? The Secretary of State can give no assurance that will satisfy Opposition Members or Scottish public opinion.
I wish to deal with the Secretary of State's argument about efficiency. He said that his solution was the most efficient of the various permutations. It is more efficient than the privatisation option. There is huge disquiet south

of the border about the efficiency of and public interest being served by privatised water companies. Only a few months ago, I received a letter from Thames Water informing me that, for the sum of £60, I could water my garden. I was surprised, as I live in a second-floor flat in Westminster. There is huge concern in all areas of England about the performance of private water companies.
The Secretary of State said that his solution was the most efficient. Most Opposition Members would argue that the municipal way of managing Scottish water assets has proven itself, over more than a century, to be the most efficient way of handling those assets. Even if we agree that creating three water boards is an efficient solution, why should the Secretary of State appoint members of those boards? Why should Secretary of State appointees be more efficient than people elected by local authorities and directly accountable to the people? That is the acid test for democracy and autocracy.
Regardless of whether the Secretary of State's appointees are excellent people, and even if he appoints some councillors, as he has said he is mindful to do, the proposal cannot be democratic. For example, if Councillor Brian Meek were appointed to one of the three water boards in Scotland—probably to all of them, given his track record of obtaining appointments—it would not make them democratic simply because he is one of the few remaining Conservative councillors in Scotland. The key to democracy is not who is appointed but who appoints. The only solution that would satisfy Opposition Members and the people of Scotland would be to allow that election to be by the democratic local authorities, which have a mandate directly from the people.
Will the Secretary of State consider his mandate, not just for the water proposals but for the whole Bill? It is a subject that we have discussed many times in Scottish politics. I remember the Secretary of State arguing in 1979 that, although a majority voted in a referendum for devolution, it constituted only 33 per cent. of the total electorate, which was no mandate to proceed with substantial change.
By the same argument, this Bill was tested last Thursday before the jury of the Scottish people. The result was that less than 14 per cent. of them voted. But only 6.3 per cent. of the total electorate—one in 15 of the adult Scottish population—went to a polling place and cast a vote for the Secretary of State's proposals.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about a legal fact. He is making some interesting debating points but the referendum on the Scotland Bill was a legal measure brought about as a direct result of an Act of Parliament that was in place. Moreover, last week's vote was not under similar conditions, so the two cannot be compared.

Mr. Salmond: "Clutching at broken reeds" might be the best way to describe that intervention. The comparison that I made is reasonable. The Conservative party's argument in 1979 was that there was not a sufficient mandate to proceed because only a third of the population could be bothered to vote for that proposal, although it received the majority vote of those who voted. By comparison, a week past Thursday, the Conservative party managed to motivate and mobilise one in every 15 members of the Scottish population to go to a polling place and cast a vote for the proposals before us tonight.
To put the matter another way, the Conservative vote in the Strathclyde region was 82,862 a week past Thursday. Compare that to the 1.2 million who voted against the proposals in the Strathclyde water referendum. I do not accept the nonsense that people did not understand, or were too silly to realise, what the measure was when they voted in that referendum.
During the local government campaign, I did a party trick at public meetings around the Strathclyde region. I would ask people to raise their hands if they had voted in the Strathclyde water ballot. The vast majority of people at those meetings raised their hands. I would ask them to put down their hands if they had not understood the question. Every hand at every public meeting stayed up. People knew exactly what they were voting on in that ballot and, by a massive number, they gave the thumbs down to the Government's proposals.
6.45 pm
The Secretary of State should therefore consider his mandate and look at the facts and figures with at least a degree of humility. He caused enormous offence in Scotland by parachuting five Conservatives from English constituencies on to the Standing Committee and by deciding each of the 102 Divisions by using those five Members. It will cause even greater offence in Scotland if the forecast of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) comes true, as I suspect that it will, that people will pour out of the dark recesses of this place—hon. Members who have not even bothered to attend or listen to this debate—and once again the issue will be decided against Scottish interests.
The Secretary of State has already heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has been a far more consistent Unionist than him over the past 20 years of Scottish politics, of the repercussions and implications of the actions that he has taken on this Bill. It may be acceptable to the Secretary of State for Scotland to behave in that manner. It may even be acceptable to the empty Conservative Benches. It is not acceptable to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Connarty: I wish to set the record straight regarding some of the misinformation given to the Committee by the Minister responsible.
First, may I pass on, through his Front Bench, to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), my best wishes to him and his wife. I hope that she gets better and that he is relieved of his troubles which prevent him from being here.
In Committee, the Minister consistently said that no alternative was put forward when the consultation took place on the Government's paper on securing a future for the water industry. But people wrote in, and Ministers kept quoting the Government's own summary of those responses to the consultation paper, which said:
Most responses (84 per cent.) came from individuals. Preponderantly they expressed opposition to privatisation.
The Minister consistently said that, as people did not give an alternative, no alternative was on the table to be discussed.
We quoted back to the Minister and English Conservative Members from the same Government analysis of the submissions:
Sixty-four per cent. of all respondents, and 67 per cent. of those opposing privatisation, preferred a solution which kept the services in local authority control".

The Minister then gave the impression that only those who bothered to write a letter—4,834 letters were received—had troubled to suggest an alternative.
In an earlier parliamentary question, I asked for an analysis of all submissions. In fact, as is shown in page 7 of the summary, 60,000 preprinted postcards were returned. With my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I delivered some 25,000 postcards signed in his constituency and mine. The rest came mainly from mid-Scotland, Fife and some constituencies in Strathclyde. People said quite specifically that they wanted water and sewerage services to remain under the direct control of elected councils.
Despite that, the Government continued to misrepresent the position in Committee. That was very sad, as it enabled the Prime Minister to be deluded. Some people may say that the Prime Minister is easily deluded about many things. He stands at the Dispatch Box quoting from briefs that do not provide sufficient facts to enable him to deal with the subject at hand.
I put to the right hon. Gentleman a parliamentary question about what he thought of the results of the Strathclyde referendum. As these matters are on record, I shall not go into any detail. In reply, the Prime Minister said:
Since Strathclyde wilfully misrepresented the Government's proposals"—[Official Report, 22 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 131.]
That was the Prime Minister's defence. It is quite clear that he had been briefed by the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues.
I sent the Prime Minister a copy of the ballot paper, which says:
Parliament is presently considering the proposals for the future of water. The Government proposes that from April 1996 water and sewerage services should be provided by a West of Scotland water authority, with a separate customers' council. The members of both bodies will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
A quango—or a "Lango"—would be appointed, and a "Lango" or a quango would be appointed to oversee it. The people of Strathclyde knew what they were voting on. They voted overwhelmingly not to make the Government do anything but to tell them that they did not want what was being proposed. That was the view of people throughout constituencies, regardless of political colour.
The party piece of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—as it was called by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—became a piece of street theatre. The Labour party leadership, my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and others went down to Eastwood. They took with them a letter, which people who had voted in the referendum were asked to read and sign. People of all political colours said that they had understood the process.
The letter says:
We deeply resent being told by you"—
"you" being the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—
and the Prime Minister that we did not understand the question that we had been asked or that we were misled by propaganda.
Everyone queued up to sign. People told us that they had been lifelong Tories but they would not be Tories much longer. They had found the party out and realised that voting for representative democracy in respect of water and


other local authority matters did not mean voting Conservative. They volunteered many other comments about the Government's misguided principles.
What is it all about? It is about jobs for the boys—boys of the right political colour and creed. The Government will probably take a side step and appoint a few councillors, including—if the individuals in question are foolish enough to accept—a few of non-Conservative ilk. I hope that non-Conservatives who are offered positions will have the guts to say no, as they would not be representing anyone.
This is all about what we have seen in England and Wales—the appointment of people who fit the bill. During the Standing Committee's deliberations, we were told to have a look at the Yorkshire Post. There we saw what Ofwat and Mr. Ian Byatt were up to in sacking people who did not take the right political line and in appointing friends, golf partners—this is rather like Mr. Peterken and the Secretary of State—old school chums and people known through previous employment, as well as the wives of individuals who had been Treasury colleagues.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard the disgraceful news that, despite the revelation that the Director General of Ofwat recognises expressly that his first duty is not to the customers but to the water industry, subject to the interests of the customers, and despite the fact that his performance in Yorkshire is such that he must have put his position in jeopardy, he was reappointed yesterday for a further two years. That ought to fill the Scottish people with fear as to what might happen if their interests were put in the hands of so-called regulators.

Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) is a great campaigner. In fact, she set up the all-party group on the water industry. It must be recognised that many people are worried about what is happening to the privatised water industry in England and Wales. Just as many people in Scotland are worried about the Government's long-term aim for the water industry there.
There is a financial agenda here. I refer to the £5 billion that the Secretary of State has said will be required over 15 years to bring water and sewerage services up to. the standard required by the European Community. In Committee, it was agreed that £3 billion of that amount would come through the public sector borrowing requirement if the Government were to continue the present funding level of £340 million a year under PSBR.
The other £2 billion is already earmarked to be raised through capital finance through current revenue. In their submissions, many local authorities have said that they are capable of getting the £2 billion from the consumers, who are willing to pay in order to balance the accounts. The Government have not been able to demonstrate that I ought not to be worried that the Treasury will lower its PSBR target and that the £3 billion for water and sewerage services in Scotland will be withdrawn slowly but surely.
Our concern is that we shall end up in the same situation as people in England and Wales, where 60 per cent. of all capital is provided from current revenue—in other words, through consumers' bills. In Scotland, the current figure is only 25 per cent. That is the Government's real agenda.
They intend to mug the people of Scotland and make them provide the capital that is required to keep the services going.
My final message to the Tories is "Stop, thief. The people of Scotland know what you are up to." Maybe they are not thieves; maybe they are water fascists—people who can take from Scots by passing laws in this Parliament. That is what water fascism is about. But the Tories will not succeed. The Scots will not allow them to succeed. We are not the mugs. This time, the Tories on the Government Front Bench are the mugs, and the people of Scotland will send them, with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) —and I should like to see them bald and tied to a mule —down south to seek seats after the next election. But, as last week's elections demonstrate, there are not many seats down here for Scots scurrying south in an attempt to secure their future. Perhaps it is time for the pipe and slippers. Redundancy is coming.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Most hon. Members are conscious of the rather sombre mood that pervades the Palace and the Chamber. None the less, this has been a very good debate. Points have been well intentioned, and we have highlighted what most people regard as one of the key scandals of Scottish politics—the Government's pursuit of changes in our water services when there is no public support for them.
What dismays Scots is that, despite the Strathclyde referendum, in which more than 1 million people said no to the Government's proposals, and despite the regional council elections, in which the Government were decimated on the ground and humiliated in spirit, Ministers are still hell-bent on pursuing the most unpopular policy to have been adopted in Scotland since the war.
Let me put it in context. Mine is probably one of the only Conservative-free local authority areas. In addition, it must be unique in Europe in having more Communist party seats that Conservative party seats. That is a measure of how this party of the past is being dealt with by Scots.
Tonight, there is a simple test for the Government. The Opposition do not have to be complicated about what they are trying to say. Our message is simple. First, we have argued that water should be retained in public ownership. The Opposition parties agreed to that, but the Government only grudgingly accepted—up to the next election.
Secondly, we have argued that the three super-quangos should be scrapped and replaced by 12 water authorities, which is essentially the status quo. Of course, we have argued that the members of all the 12 water boards should be councillors. Why do the Government not accept that?
The Secretary of State, who must have been suspended from the real world, suggested that the Government have found the best solution in the circumstances, but no Opposition Member has heard a case to justify why it is the best solution. The simple test for the Secretary of State and the Minister is to tell Scotland loudly and clearly why they will not accept 12 boards comprising all councillors.
Of course there is a precedent for that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said: they are doing it with police and fire services. This local government reorganisation is such a half-baked measure that we shall end up not with a single tier but a multi-tier. If it is good enough for the police and fire services, why is it not good enough for the future of Scotland's water industry?
The Government have also argued that we need investment. If so, what is the essential difference between from 12 water authorities working in the marketplace, borrowing in the marketplace and delivering a service and three super-quangos operating in the marketplace but still subject to the same PSBR constraints as the current regional authorities in Scotland? If the Secretary of State were being honest, he would tell us that there is no difference.
There is an ideological preference for three super-quangos with appointees from the Secretary of State, but it makes no sense in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money for Scottish consumers, who currently enjoy all three qualities in great abundance.
7 pm
The Government can end the water torture and we can end the Tory turmoil. Far be it from the Opposition to give the Government a way out, but we are telling the Government, on behalf of the Scottish people, that there is a way out; they can start to resurrect their political fortunes in Scotland if they merely accept the wisdom of our advice.
Let me state again—before the Minister, who is desperate to get on his feet, rises to finish the debate—the simple proposition: why not have 12 water authorities, comprising elected members whom we trust with £7.5 billion-worth of expenditure every year on vital services such as education, police, fire and every other service? Are we really saying to the Scots and to elected councillors that we simply cannot trust them to run water and sewerage services? Surely not.
I hope that the Secretary of State remains conscious of the figures imprinted on every Conservative mind—that in the Strathclyde water referendum 1.1 million people did not say no to privatisation; they said no to the crazy, half-baked proposals for three super-quangos and a grudging acceptance of councillors. We will certainly have none of that. The Scots agree with us, and that is why we will divide the House on this important new clause.

Mr. Stewart: First, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), may I thank Opposition Members for their best wishes to Lady Monro? Secondly, I welcome the debate, in which a number of important and constructive points have been made.
We shall return to the particular point raised by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) about the water pollution problems caused by abandoned coal mines.
We have heard a number of rumbustious speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). He will forgive me if I regard his advice on how the Tory party should increase its vote in Scotland with a wry smile. I am not sure that he is the best source of advice on these matters.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) put the case for what the Government were proposing extremely well. We need extra finance for water and sewerage in Scotland. There needs to be a partnership between the public and the private sector in order to achieve that.
It is a practical problem, not a problem of ideology. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), have talked about privatisation and asked for an assurance that there will be no privatisation of water and sewerage in future. I say simply that the answer

that the Government are proposing to the practical problem of the need for extra finance in water and sewerage—the problem is sewerage, not water—means that there is simply no need for privatisation in Scotland in future. There is clearly a need for a new structure which maximises the benefits of economies of scale.
What is the essential difference then between the two sides of the House, given acceptance by Opposition Members that the new amendments on disconnections clear that matter up without any equivocation? It is about the number of councillors on the new water authorities. Opposition Members take the view that all members of the new authorities should be councillors, but we believe that there should be a partnership and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries reassured the Committee, there should be a significant number of councillors on the new authorities, but that it would be unreasonable to bind the Secretary of State on specific numbers, and that other people also have the right to be considered on merit for the new authorities.
I believe that we are putting forward a practical solution to a practical problem, and I therefore recommend that the House does not accept new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 278.

Division No. 240]
[7.06pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Ms Jean


Alton, David
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cox, Tom


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Austin-Walker, John
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H.


Blair, Tony
Dowd, Jim


Blunkett, David
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bradley, Keith
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burden, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galloway, George


Cann, Jamie
Gapes, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Garrett, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Graham, Thomas


Coffey, Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Gunnell, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hanson, David
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
Olner, William


Harvey, Nick
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Parry, Robert


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Patchett, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Pickthall, Colin


Hoey, Kate
Pike, Peter L.


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pope, Greg


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmora)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Doug
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redmond, Martin


Hutton, John
Reid, Dr John


Ingram, Adam
Rendel, David


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Janner, Greville
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Alan
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McKelvey, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLeish, Henry
Stevenson, George


Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


McMaster, Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


MacShane, Denis
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Tyler, Paul


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Mandelson, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert N


Meacher, Michael
Watson, Mike


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Milburn, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Miller, Andrew
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. John Cummings and


Mudie, George
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Amess, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Faber, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fabricant, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingnam, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, Sir George


Body, Sir Richard
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman






Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Shaw, David (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

INITIAL REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

'.—(1) As soon as practicable the Boundary Commission shall review such local government areas or parts thereof as the Secretary of State may direct, for the purpose of considering whether to make such proposals in relation to them as are authorised by section 13 of the 1973 Act, and what proposals, if any, to make; and the commission shall formulate any such proposals accordingly.

(2) The provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the 1973 Act shall apply to a review under subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: New clause 3—Cost of re-organisation—
'.—(1) The Treasury shall undertake a review and publish a report on the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the provisions of this Act; and the report shall be laid before Parliament no later than 6th April 1995.'.

New clause 29—Review of cost of reorganization—
'(1) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall report annually to Parliament on the costs incurred by the Secretary of State, any Staff Commission, residuary bodies, and Property Commission established by this Act, and by local authorities as a result of the implementation of the provisions of this Act and associated costs, in respect of each of the Financial years ending on 31st March in each of 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and local authorities to provide the National Audit Office with all the information required to compile the reports referred to in subsection (1) above.
(3) In this section, "local authority" includes all new authorities and joint boards, (including Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and the Western Isles) and until 31st March 1996, all existing local authorities (including the islands councils), and joint committees and joint boards.'.

Amendment No. 25, in schedule 1, page 124, line 8, leave out
'Banff and Buchan District Council'.

Government amendments Nos. 287 and 288.

Amendment No. 26 in page 124, line 39, at end insert—


Banff and Buchan
Banff and Buchan District Council.'.

Amendment No. 42 in page 124, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert—


'Ayrshire
Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council;



Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council;



Cunninghame District Council;



Kyle and Carrick District Council.'.

Amendment No. 5, in page 124, line 45, after 'The', insert 'Scottish'.

Government amendments Nos. 289 and 290.

Amendment No. 28, in page 125, line 2, leave out 'East Dunbartonshire' and insert 'Lennox'.

Amendment No. 29, in page 125, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert
'Cumbemauld and Kilsyth District Council and Strathkelvin District Council.'.

Government amendments Nos. 292, 291 and 293.

Amendment No. 169, in page 125, leave out line 25 and insert—


'North Highland
Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross and Cromarty District Councils


South Highland
Badenoch and Strathspey, Inverness, Lochaber, Nairn, and Skye and Lochalsh District Councils'.

Amendment No. 30, in page 125, line 27, leave out 'Cumbernauld and Kilsyth'.

Amendment No. 31, in page 125, leave out lines 29 to 31.

Government amendments Nos. 294 to 296.

Amendment No. 170, in page 125, line 46, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 39 on page 126 and insert—


'Renfrewshire
Renfrew District Council.'.

Amendment No. 270, in page 125, line 46, leave out from
'Council' to end of line 37 on page 126.

Government amendment No. 297.

Amendment No. 271, in page 126, line 38, leave out
'(except the areas included in East Renfrewshire)'.

Amendment No. 272, in clause 5, page 3, line 43, at end insert—
'(7) For the purpose of the first ordinary election of councillors, referred to in sub-section (2) above, the electoral wards for each local government area shall comprise the electoral wards for existing district councils insofar as they fall entirely within a local government area established under section 1 of this Act, and provided that where the boundary between two local government areas divides an existing district council ward, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland shall, within eight weeks of this Act coming into force, submit to the Secretary of State proposals for areas within such part district council wards to be added to contiguous district council wards within the new local government area.
(8) Within twenty-one days of receiving proposals from the Local Government Boundary Commission of Scotland in accordance with subsection (7) above, the Secretary of State shall, by order, give effect to the proposals without modification.
(9) An order made under subsection (8) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Government amendments Nos. 280 to 285.

Mr. McLeish: I wish to speak to new clause 3 and amendment No. 42.
The debate is important because it covers not only local government boundaries but the important question of how they were determined and the costs of what the Opposition still regard as a half-baked proposal. There has been widespread concern in Scotland throughout the passage of the Bill; that concern has been apparent both during the Committee stage and right up to Report.
The key issue about which we are all concerned is how the Government arrived at some of the boundaries that we see not only in the Bill but in the amendments before us. The Bill has been framed with no consensus in Scotland among political parties, local government or the trade unions. There is no consensus for any form of change. There has been no in-depth independent review. The hallmark of the 73 proposals building on Wheatley was the desire not only to attain consensus but to have an independent commission assess the implications of change and report to the House where decisions were taken.
The boundaries in the Bill are not built on any notion of improved service delivery. It seems ludicrous that we are debating boundaries this evening when no consideration has been given to the link between boundaries and effective service delivery. I shall develop that theme later. Despite the Government's rantings, no regard has been given to historical communities, historical links or natural boundaries.
If the boundary changes are not linked to any of those issues, what we are faced with is simple gerrymandering. The Government do not like that word; they complained in another place about its use. There is no other word to sum up how the Opposition and the people of Scotland feel

about a set of proposals that bear no relationship to their needs and aspirations, but much relationship to the needs and aspirations of the Conservative party.
After the trouncing that the Conservatives were given in the regional elections in Scotland, England and Wales, one might have thought that Ministers would be visited with some degree of humility. It is clear from the initial water debate that that has not happened. We wait with interest to see whether that will change in relation to this debate.
No one—even the Government—could argue that policies and boundaries that were built on gerrymandering could ever endure. I warn the Government that we will fight to ensure that the elections that the Government hope will take place next year will be derailed and delayed. The proposals before us, because of their instability, simply could not endure a change of Government? Why are the Government not saying, "Yes, we need to build consensus. Yes, we need an independent review." If they did that, it would save us having to move and debate the issues this evening.

Mr. Stewart: Which of the Government's proposals is the Labour party specifically against? Is the hon. Gentleman saying, for example, that the Labour party is specifically against moving Kincardine-on-Forth into Fife?

Mr. McLeish: The Minister is trying to challenge my humility. The suggestion was daft in the first place. I do not think that I should applaud in any way the Government coming to their senses in one minus way to deliver Kincardine back to its people. We are against the Bill root and branch. It will do nothing for Scottish local government. It will do everything for the Conservative party—

Mr. Stewart: Well, maybe.

Mr. McLeish: I will qualify that. I want to discuss that in a minute.
The Bill does not deserve to survive. The Secretary of State may smile. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord Douglas-Hamilton) may just carry on with note filling, but the point is that the Bill is thoroughly bad and obnoxious.
On gerrymandering, when the Bill was conceived, the hon. Members for Eastwood and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and some of the other apparatchiks who work out of Conservative central office decided, "Let us build the reorganisation around those two seats. So what we had in the first instance was Stirling becoming a single tier. We need not go into it, but it is legendary"—

Mr. Graham: Eastwood.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend makes the point. That constituency seems to have been the marvellous focus for a Bill, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not have read, but which, clearly, we have. It is great credit to the Minister that he has been able to wrap the whole of the Conservative machine in Scotland around his little finger to come up with such a daft, divisive and dangerous system. Perhaps he should be applauded for that, but he will get little applause from the Opposition.
Clearly, major issues are involved in the boundaries. I cannot miss the opportunity to say that, last Friday, when the Government tabled new amendments, they also conceived the smallest unitary council so far. We started with 28. Then, through the Government's inspiration—or, I should say, that of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)


as he rampaged through Scottish councils looking for anyone for whom he could move an amendment—we ended up with 30. On Friday, the figure went up to 32.
I ask the Government to accept a challenge. Can a council covering 47,000 people constitute an all-singing, all-dancing, all-purpose authority? That is what we now have in Central region. I do not doubt for a moment the quality of either councillors or officials, but it is important for us to flag up one point. Fiction has been turned into sheer farce. We now know that Stirling was gerrymandered for political reasons—and we have also discovered that the Government are willing to go to any lengths to demean the processes of review and local government reorganisation. We have seen that with Clackmannan, a council covering 47,000 people.
7.30 pm
I am led to believe that Clackmannan has half the number of schools that my constituency contains. Now its water will be provided by three super-quangos, its police will be provided by one of the eight police authority boards and its fire services will be delivered by one of the eight fire authorities. Sadly, the Stirlings and Clackmannans of the world will be wholly dependent on larger authorities: they will be like colonies of Fife regional council, which will bestride it with its 350,000 people. Where on earth is Clackmannan to find its education and social services? That is not an abstract question. The Minister smiles, but he knows full well that, although the Government's plan may fulfil the politics of madness on the Conservative Benches, it does not fulfil the politics of reality for those poor people in small authorities. They will suffer greatly.
The Minister laughs ruefully, because that is not his agenda. His agenda does not concern the quality of services enjoyed by people in Central region, Lothian, Tayside and Grampian, whose councils will be dismembered. His interest is in what the Government call enabling councils, referring to the ability of any council—regardless of its size—to purchase services wherever it wishes. Health boards do it; health trusts will do it. It is called "purchaser provider". But it simply is not working, and if the Government approve the relevant amendments—the vote may take place tomorrow, because of the scheduling of business—certain people in certain communities all over Scotland will be condemned to much poorer services. We cannot accept that that could be a legitimate aspiration in any reorganisation, Conservative or otherwise. It seems to us that the Government have now come clean, and decided that they are willing to plumb any depths to provide local councils with few services to administer.
One of the key issues behind all the rantings of Ministers and all the gerrymandering has been cost. In new clause 3, we ask for a Treasury inquiry into Scottish Office-inspired madness—for that is all that it can be. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State sitting in on the debate; he was absent during the 170 hours that we spent in Committee, and we sincerely hope that he will wish to contribute to the debate on costs. Costs are crucial. Whether we believe the £720 million figure given by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or the back-of-an-envelope job provided by the Scottish Office —which suggested savings of £60 million for 1995–96 —we cannot deny that there is a huge disparity in the estimates of the cost implications of the Bill.
That would be enough to persuade any sane Government to submit the matter to independent scrutiny.
We do not argue that the Treasury is independent; but we have a feeling that—when faced with a possible public sector borrowing requirement of £35 billion at the next election, a position in which front-line services are starved of resources and circumstances in which such innovations as "care in the community" have little funding to implement the proposals involved—the Treasury would be happy to investigate the kind of madness that we are seeing in the Scottish Office.
The crucial aspect of costs is the question of staff cuts, with which the question of savings is inextricably linked. It was in the House, at our last Scottish Question Time, that the Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag: for the first time, he talked about redundancies.

Mr. Lang: Rubbish.

Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State says, "Rubbish." I hope that the Minister who replies will explain away that first reference to redundancies. In the House and elsewhere, the Government have given the impression that these massive savings can be made by means of a painless cut in staff numbers—but the word "redundancy" implies something more sinister and significant. I hope that the Minister will begin to clarify its meaning.
Playing politics with 300,000 jobs in Scotland is not just a sinister process, however; it is even worse than that. The Government were unwilling to write into the Bill the arrangement introduced by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which automatically transferred all dedicated committee staff to the new authorities. Why? And why did the Government then decide to turn their back on the European acquired rights directive and the transfer of undertakings legislation? Every conceivable legal opinion is telling the Government that of course all the staff will be transferred; whether it takes the courts to do that is immaterial.
The Government have sought to justify this half-baked reorganisation by reference to savings. That is why they did not include in the Bill provisions for those people to be transferred automatically and why they have turned their back on European legislation. Ultimately, however, there will be no savings, because there will be no staff sacrificed on the altar of this reorganisation. The Minister should tell us why the Government are able to ignore both precedent and Europe, and play politics with the future of 300,000 people.
It has already been suggested that 30,000 jobs could be lost—up to 10 per cent. of the current number of jobs in Scottish local authorities. Is the Minister willing to say from the Dispatch Box, "Yes, that is the case," or will he continue to play politics and talk about figures between 700 and 2,000? However we look at the figures, they simply do not add up: the Government are behaving in a sinister fashion, unwilling to own up to the truth about costs.
If we take the labour savings out of the equation, it will mean that the Government will save nothing at all. Unison, the public service union in Scotland, will take the matter to the European Commissioner and to every existing local authority: if they decide that there will be no scrapping of staff but an automatic transfer, the Government will have no savings with which to justify the reorganisation.
The Government amendments constitute a firm commitment to gerrymandering of a high order. They also constitute a commitment to massive savings, when none will be made. If we discount the gerrymandering and the


bogus savings, what on earth are we left with? Why did we spend 170 hours in Committee, and why are we to spend two and a half days on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading, when the Government have now been fully exposed?
I believe that this is a real tragedy. We gave the Government a chance to rescue themselves in the last debate, and they failed; in our new clauses and amendments on boundaries, we ask them to see common sense. When will they wake up to the fact that there is no suspension of political reality in Scotland? That has not happened over the past 12 months, and it will not happen over the next 12 months. Scots simply do not want this reorganisation, and opinion polls show that two thirds of them do not support the single-tier concept.
What we need is an independent commission, and at least a Treasury first look at the costs involved. We want the people of Scotland to appreciate that what the Government are doing is not in their interests, but in the interests of the Conservative party. I hope that what I have said, and what my hon. Friends will say, will be taken on board.
It is a sad occasion when the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers totally ignore public opinion. There can be no greater and more sinister development in any democracy than when the gap between the Government and the governed grows so large with no prospect of being bridged; at that point, we move from an issue of reorganisation to a dangerous issue of democracy and politics.
Even if the Government do not give a damn about the services enjoyed by 5 million Scots, the effectiveness of the £7.5 billion spent every year on services or the Strathclyde water referendum, do they not have any pride in democracy? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are supposed to support that, but at times it seems that, while the Opposition support democracy, the Government only pay lip service to it. We have reached a dangerous situation in Scotland, and all because the Government will not listen. Tonight, they have an opportunity to listen and to respond. We hope that they do so.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that Channel 4 news has just released information that the Cabinet Committee will meet on Thursday to consider the selling off of 51 per cent. of the Royal Mail and 51 per cent. of Parcelforce. Have you received notification of a statement on that matter? Given that Scottish Office Ministers are present, and that they must surely have been consulted about such a proposal, perhaps one of them can make a statement at the Dispatch Box to confirm that Channel 4 report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no notification of anything, other than the fact that the House is debating new clause 2.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) made an astonishing attack on Clackmannan and East Lothian district councils, which are the subject of Government amendments before the House. I expected the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Opposition new clauses but he chose not to do so.
For the record, new clause 2, to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer, is unnecessary because the

legislative powers to which it refers already exist. The hon. Gentleman referred to costs. New clause 3, which he did not address at any length, suggests that the Treasury should make a fundamental review of the costs of reorganising local government in Scotland. That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how central Government conduct their business. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he and his colleagues displayed that misunderstanding in Committee, when they constantly suggested that the Scottish Office was putting forward figures without the Treasury's consent. That kind of scenario is completely inconceivable.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister confirm that he suggested to the Treasury that this muddled mess might cost £720 million? Did that happen?

Mr. Stewart: No. The Treasury has rather more sense than that. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury have more sense than to believe the figures presented by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. As he raised the point, I will refer to his own estimates of council tax rises in Fife, which he represents, following reorganisation. They suggest that band D council tax in Dunfermline would rise from £621 to £1,061, and in Kirkcaldy from £664 to £1,094.

Mr. McLeish: May we have the Minister's estimates?

Mr. Stewart: I am not giving the hon. Gentleman my own estimates; I am simply giving him the estimates of Labour-controlled Fife regional council.

Mr. John Home Robertson: How many Conservatives are on that council?

Mr. Stewart: Not a lot. That is precisely my point. That council cannot reasonably be regarded as some kind of crypto-Conservative organisation, yet it estimates that a single-tier Fife authority would produce savings of £4.9 million per annum. That is the estimate of Labour-controlled Fife regional council.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that all the arguments relating to Fife apply equally to Ayrshire?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not agree—but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I hope to be able to respond to his points later. I will have to take fully into account the points made by the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohue) in favour of the Government's present proposals for Ayrshire.

Mr. Connarty: Before we debate who prefers what in relation to democratic responses and public feeling about representation, perhaps we may focus on costs. Has the Secretary of State asked the Treasury to make a reasonable and rational assessment of the report on which he based his figures, compared with that produced for COSLA by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? They seem to take different views and to give different estimates. In Committee, more credibility was attached to the CIPFA report. Has the Secretary of State asked for an independent assessment of costs? That aspect will affect every other decision on resources and services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said.

Mr. Stewart: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we in the Scottish Office are in constant and close touch with the Treasury.

Mr. Canavan: The Treasury tells him what to do.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Treasury tells me what to do, but Labour Members suggest that the Treasury ought to tell us what to do. That is the purpose of their new clause. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Canavan: We are calling for an independent element in assessing the costs.

Mr. Stewart: Labour's amendment suggests that the Treasury should have an estimate of the costs. I am saying that that happens in any event. It is inconceivable that any major Government measure is adopted without the Treasury's full involvement. That has been the case in relation to the Bill, as with every Government Bill that is put before the House.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central did not refer specifically to new clause 29, which would involve the National Audit Office in the auditing of local government reorganisation costs. I am sorry about that because I was going to say that the amendment's heart was in the right place but that it is unnecessary because the NAO has a relationship with central Government costs, not local government costs.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to respond specifically to points made by hon. Members representing highlands constituencies, because the highlands case was not, by agreement, debated in Committee.
It may help the House if I said something about costs and and about the Government amendments. My main point in answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central is that the estimates to which he has referred to, and especially the COSLA estimates, assume, first, that more than 3,000 local government staff will be made redundant and paid extremely generous sums—my understanding is that the sum would be between £100,000 and £200,000 each—and, secondly, that they will all be replaced by new staff. I regard that as a ridiculous and unreasonable proposition and certainly the Government would not finance a scheme of that nature.
Moreover, estimates by individual local authorities of all political persuasions throughout Scotland consistently show savings as a result of the Government's proposals. The Scottish National party authority of Angus shows savings of £8.45 million over the status quo; the Borders shows savings of £22.4 million, for the unitary authorities in Tayside; Dundee shows savings. I have already referred to Fife and I know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will have studied Fife regional council's estimates in great detail.

Mr. McLeish: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stewart: He is wrongly shaking his head.

Mr. McLeish: I do not like statistics.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not like statistics. [Interruption.]

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I shall give way when I have finished the point.
Fife is suggesting that the Government's proposals would result in savings, over 15 years, of some £68 million.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ensure that we have understood exactly what the Minister said? Do I misquote him in saying that, when he was talking about compensation to employees, he said that the Government would not finance figures of that nature? The figures are put at £100,000. There are many employees, who have to make decisions about their futures and their careers, and who would like to know exactly on what basis they are to be compensated. If the Government are saying that they are to compensate in a niggardly manner, that ought to be known.

Mr. Stewart: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has raised a legitimate point. What I regard as completely unreasonable is the proposition that local authorities—because. ultimately, it is their responsibility—would make people redundant at an enormous cost and then take people on to replace them, which is the essential assumption made in the COSLA figures. In the Bill, we are introducing powers to control such things.

Mr. Welsh: Why is no transitional figure given for property in Scotland when the figure has been calculated for England and for Wales? Will the Minister comment on COSLA's point about the staff turnover effect, following on from what he said? Does he dismiss that idea, and does he think that that would not have an effect on costs?

Mr. Stewart: Of course there must be staff turnover; nobody denies that. The hon. Gentleman asks about property. I hope that he will recognise that the decisions are for local authorities—and, as I understand it, his own SNP-controlled local authority has no particular difficulty over that matter.
Government amendments Nos. 287, 292, and 295—which relate to Dundee—reflect the undertaking that I made in Committee to look closely at the boundary of the city. They have the effect of including Invergowrie in Perthshire and Kinross. In response to the reasoned arguments advanced by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and by the City of Dundee district council, we proposed to include in the city the Balgarthno area to the east, Birkhill cemetery, Clatto Moor and Baldovan Wood, and an area to the east of the Forfar road. The case put to us was that those areas were integral parts of the city's overall strategy for future development.
The only essential difference between the amendments and the case put to the Government by the hon. Members for Dundee, East and for Dundee, West was over Strathmartine. The community council there argued that the area is predominantly rural, and we have respected that view, which favours an Angus link.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I do not want to delay the House in any way, because I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that the Minister is being at all honest with the House. When he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East in Committee, he almost misled him by the way in which he said that he would introduce amendments to reflect what my hon. Friend said. As I shall show if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the amendments in no way meet the points put to


the Minister by Dundee district council, my hon. Friend and myself. The Minister knows as well as I do that his father is still very disappointed about what he is doing here tonight.

Mr. Stewart: My father always expresses his views with great lucidity. May I say to the hon. Members for Dundee, East and Dundee, West that I do not accept that general criticism? I accept, of course, that the Government have not agreed to what was proposed by Dundee district council, but in essence we have agreed to all the proposals put forward by the district council except those in relation to Strathmartine, which the community council indicated it wanted to remain in a rural authority.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister knows very well that the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Milnefield is one of the areas which, as I clearly explained in Committee, has been excluded from Dundee—as has the Tay estuary nature reserve. A whole series of areas that were raised with the Minister in Committee have been kept out of Dundee, and very few concessions have been made to the case that I put on behalf of Dundee district council.

Mr. Stewart: I am not disputing the geographical facts with the hon. Gentleman; I am saying that I believe that, in the face of conflicting arguments, we have responded to the case put by the City of Dundee district council. We have not entirely accepted the case that has been advanced but we have conceded that the case—which I thought was the most important point—for Balgarthno and the industrial estate there was valid. It is clear from the amendments that the Government have listened.
There is a detailed amendment to the boundary in relation to Luss and there is a major change to the Government's proposals in relation to Central region. We decided that there should be three councils in Central region—Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling—based on the existing district council boundaries. That was an extremely difficult decision to make.
It was clear that the Government's original proposal to link Clackmannan, Falkirk and Kincardine was not generally acceptable. We therefore decided that Kincardine-on-Forth should go back into Fife. We then faced a choice between one council or three for Central region.
I emphasise that the fact that we decided in favour of three councils was not a criticism of Central regional council, which has many achievements to its credit. However, there is no doubt that the district councils—and Falkirk and Clackmannan in particular—put forward a very pragmatic case to the effect that they would be able to supply the necessary services to their people, if they were on their own, by co-operating with neighbouring councils and with the private and voluntary sectors.

8 pm

Mr. Connarty: The Minister must realise that I would express concern because the original amendment, which was tabled by my hon. Friends and me and which was debated and discussed at great length in Committee, proposed that Stirling and Clackmannan should be together; that was the recommendation of the Wheatley

commission for the district authority without the education and social services functions allocated to it. That was the proposal put forward in Committee.
The Government must explain at greater length why they rejected the two-council solution. If it was not to be one council, I cannot understand why the Minister should diminish the size and resource base of local government in Stirling, of which I was previously the leader, and of Clackmannan, which I know very well, to the point where we think it will not be viable in the long term.

Mr. Stewart: I fully accept that there is a balanced argument here. However, the view expressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East is not the view that Clackmannan district council put to the Government. That council put forward the view that
As a unitary authority the District Council would continue … maintaining a flexible and responsive approach to decision-making and internal management.
It stated that the council
has enthusiastically embraced the concept of enabling and working in partnership.
It added that that
has not been solely in response to the Government's view, but was more a result of an appreciation of the needs and aspirations of the area and its people and the need to reach pragmatic, practical solutions which involved working with other interested parties and service providers.
That was the view of Clackmannan district council which, as the House is aware, is not run by the Conservative party. It is a Labour authority. It believed that it could deliver the necessary services as an enabling council.
Clackmannan district council concluded that it believed that
it is uniquely placed to carry this structure of local government forward as a unitary authority and to build on it as a model of quality local government for the future.
Those are not the words of the Scottish Office. They are the words of Clackmannan district council. I accept entirely the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that different arguments apply and that reasonable people can take a different view. The view that we eventually took was that the question about Central regional council turned on the Clackmannan case. We eventually agreed to accept the view put forward by Clackmannan district council.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Minister agree that all that verbiage has nothing to do with the real point? The way in which Central region was divided up had everything to do with a vain attempt at keeping Stirling district as a future fiefdom for the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The logical way out of the conundrum in Stirling was to link Clackmannan and Stirling districts together into a functioning local authority. The fact that we now have three unitary authorities in the centre of Scotland has everything to do with an attempt at gerrymandering the map and nothing to do with real local government.

Mr. Stewart: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Labour-led Clackmannan district council is somehow part of a plot involving Tory gerrymandering. I have read out the position of Clackmannan district council—the wee county. Its position is perfectly acceptable. Of course, we had to consider the decision very carefully—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but I am saying that, given a difficult choice, the Government eventually accepted the case of Labour-led Clackmannan district council.
I want now to consider the Government amendments in relation to the split between East Lothian and Midlothian. That again, was a matter of judgment as several considerations pointed in both directions. We received very strong representations from East Lothian which, again, is a Labour-led district council. It argued that it should be an independent council. If Opposition Members are saying that the Labour leaders of Eastwood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eastwood?"]—of East Lothian; that was to make sure that Opposition Members are awake.

Mr. Home Robertson: I must point out to the Minister that there is a substantial distinction between Eastwood and East Lothian.
I am grateful for what the Minister is saying and, above all, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted defeat for their original outrageous proposal which would have split the historic county of East Lothian between Livingston and the eastern borders. However, people in East Lothian very much value the quality services provided for them directly now, not only by East Lothian district council, but also by Lothian regional council. Will the Minister undertake to allow the new, comparatively small single-tier authority of East Lothian to budget to continue to directly deliver that full range of local services that the people value so highly at present?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed these matters. Given the representations that we have received from East Lothian district council in response to the questions that I asked at the meeting that the hon. Gentleman and I attended, we are convinced that East Lothian can deliver the services of a unitary authority to its people effectively in terms of service quality and costs.
The final Government amendment in the group represents a change in Renfrewshire which will be of particular interest to the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). The amendment moves the Ralston ward from East Renfrewshire authority to Renfrewshire. Both hon. Members will welcome that proposal.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: From the original proposals for Renfrewshire, all the areas except Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor, have now been taken back into what was West Renfrewshire authority. That also means that the new East Renfrewshire authority; as proposed by the Minister, will comprise exactly his parliamentary constituency boundaries. He knows that boundary well. I raised the matter with him in Committee. On 28 April, I received a reply—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention.

Mr. McMaster: It is short and relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a parliamentary answer on 28 April, the Minister said that the A727, which is a boundary listed in the Bill, is no longer a classified route, and when it was a classified route it ran from Clarkston to Cathcart.

Mr. Stewart: Those problems will be resolved as a result of the Government amendment. I hope that that will be warmly welcomed by the hon. Members for Paisley, North and for Paisley, South.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I have responded to a number of points made by Labour Members. I know that a large number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Stewart: Not at the moment.
I shall sum up the Government's amendments by saying that all of them respond to genuine concerns that have been expressed on a non-party political basis. On that basis—

Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that we must sit here all night listening to the Minister. However, he has not mentioned the fact that a democratic referendum took place in his constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

Sir David Steel: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir David Steel: The Secretary of State has not dealt with the other amendments on the list of selection, including my amendment No. 5. I am grateful to him for giving way because it saves me from trying to make a speech, which will particularly delight my hon. Friends.
May I further entice the Secretary of State to accept my simple amendment No. 5? As he will know, the co-ordinating committee which is preparing for the new authority of the borders believes that its title should be the Scottish Borders Council to bring it into line with Scottish Borders Enterprise and the Scottish Borders Tourist Board. I hope that he will agree.

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, but I must disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. I do not agree with the amendment—first, because there may need to be a longer period of consultation; and, secondly, because the new council will be able to change its name to the one suggested by the right hon. Gentleman if it wishes to do so. On balance, that is a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly, given the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate. In particular, I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 169 which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is beside me.
I underscore what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. By prior agreement—I am grateful to all those who were involved in that agreement—we now have the first opportunity in the proceedings, given that there was no highland Member serving on the Committee, to discuss what is in many ways the most radical boundary proposal for local government across the whole of Scotland. Under the proposal, all the existing local government structure in the Highland region at present will be dismantled and replaced by a single council which will cover half the land mass of Scotland—it will be bigger than Wales and, indeed, almost as big as Belgium.
I know that both the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been good enough to meet delegations from both sides of the argument. My other hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is also present and will be hoping to catch your


eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, given the debate that has taken place.
I make it clear from the outset—although the Minister and the Secretary of State are aware of this—that my hon. Friend and I speak from a north highland perspective, in particular Caithness and Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty, and we will be recommending a two-council option. My other hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will wish to speak against that and in favour of what is presently proposed by the Scottish Office. In so doing, he will be representing the views of one of the districts in my constituency, Skye and Lochalsh, which shares the view put forward by the Government. That district does not share the view that I am putting forward this evening, although the other two districts in my constituency, Ross and Cromarty and that part of Inverness district which falls within my parliamentary seat, share that view, as do the Caithness and Sutherland district councils.
I am against the single Highland council that has been proposed, basically, for reasons of gut instinct. It is much too large and, accordingly, it will be much too remote. It as simple as that. It has been argued by some—indeed, some hon. Members in the Labour party have argued the point; the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has argued it elsewhere—that, in the highland context, the opposition to what the Government are proposing is not as it may have been in certain other areas, but it is a defence of the status quo.
I do not agree with that. I am in favour of single-tier local authorities. Like many others in the highlands, I viewed the introduction of the Bill as a great opportunity to bring local government closer to people and to simplify it. In my constituency experience, it is clear that people do not adequately distinguish, or understand sufficiently well the distinction, between the functions carried out by districts and the functions carried out by the existing Highland regional council. Therefore, I do not accept the status quo as a defence.
8.15 pm
In asking the Secretary of State to think again, I shall argue a few points. First, I refer to public opinion. As the Scottish Office knows, the Association of Highland Districts commissioned a public opinion poll which showed that no less than 83 per cent. of 1,000 respondents across the highlands were against the imposition of a single Highland council. In a parliamentary answer to me yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed that almost exactly the same proportion—83 per cent.—of those who had written to the Scottish Office were against what was being proposed and were in favour of the two-council option. Indeed, with an entire year at its disposal, and with the backing of the Highland region, the Scottish Office has been unable to amass more than 51 respondents in favour of what is proposed.
Secondly, I refer to the cost. There will be savings, whatever happens. Under the proposal, we are talking about abolishing eight district councils and having only one local authority for the whole area, so there will be savings, whether there is one Highland council or two. The Association of Highland Districts estimates its savings to be some £2 million per annum.
Thirdly, as we heard in the earlier debate, the proposal is completely inconsistent with what the Scottish Office is bringing forward elsewhere in Scotland. How can we have one local authority with fewer than 50,000 people in one part of Scotland, yet another local authority with more than 200,000 people for the whole of the highlands? It does not make sense.
Fourthly, I refer to a strategic overview. We speak against the backdrop of the highlands having secured objective 1 funding. We are all pleased about that. That is an example of a single authority being able to provide a strategic overview and argue its case not only at the national level but at the European Union level, too. I must point out that the campaign for objective 1 status involved more than Highland regional council; it involved other local authorities both to the north, the west and the south. If there were two Highland councils, that degree of co-operation would be essential.
Officially, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has come out in favour of one local authority, but its constituent parts, the local enterprise companies—including Ross and Cromarty Enterprise in my constituency, which favours more than one local authority—are by no means unanimous.
Fifthly, I refer to the quality of democracy. If the proposal goes ahead, how will the authorities live up to the ideals and aspirations that the Secretary of State set out in the White Paper? There will be a massive democratic deficit. We will be getting rid of scores of local councillors in terms of the total number for the highlands. Even going to the top end of the scale in terms of the number of councillors that there might be, I cannot see how one authority can effectively deliver useful, worthwhile, and genuinely local democracy with a certain number of councillors when set against areas that would be the size of wards, as well as the range of functions that they would have to administer.
Finally, we tabled the amendment tonight almost in a probing sense to find out whether there had been any movement of minds in the Scottish Office, and also to find out whether the Government might yet be amenable to further consideration, with a view to further changes at a later stage in another place.
After the local elections, it was made clear that the Scottish Office was into listening and trying to work with the grain of public opinion. Here is a good issue where the Scottish Office can do just that. It is not even a party political issue in the highlands, as all parties have the divisions of opinion which are clear from my party's ranks tonight. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again and will indicate that when he winds up.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 289 and 290, and I start by congratulating Clackmannan and Falkirk district councils on securing what they wanted for their respective areas.
Clackmannan waged a spirited, imaginative and energetic campaign which built on the high regard in which it is held by the community. Falkirk district, for its part, never swayed from its view that a unitary authority based in the main town in the district would serve the people better than a council administered from Stirling.
I suppose that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is satisfied with the outcome of his campaign since he has won an authority based on the boundaries of his own constituency, along with the villages of Cowie,


Fallin and Plean from my constituency. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's cup of ambrosia will be overflowing, and it may become a poisoned chalice. The recent local government results showed that Labour was a clear 13 points ahead of all Tories—both independent and official—compared with only 3.6 per cent. in 1990.
The amendments deal with four authorities which currently deliver services to my constituency. For the benefit of the House, I should explain that Clackmannan county constituency covers the whole of Clackmannan district, which has 12 wards in it, and which, in turn, has six Central region wards. On top of that, there are another four district wards—two in Stirling and two in Falkirk—which comprise in turn another two wards of Central region.
When the composition of the new unitary authorities was being considered, one can imagine my surprise when the proposals which appeared first in the White Paper and then in the Bill made such a dog's breakfast of the Central region area. Before the publication of the White Paper, I went to see the Secretary of State to express my concern at the proposed authority, which was rumoured, of Falkirk and Clackmannan districts.

Mr. Lang: indicated assent.

Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State nods his head. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the two areas were not linked and that they were separated by the River Forth. He did not know at the time that Kincardine bridge, which is the nearest crossing of the Forth to the two areas, may be in Falkirk in the south, but it lands in Kincardine —hence the name, I suppose—in the north, in Fife.
I can only imagine that my brief geography lesson had a salutary effect on St. Andrew's house, since that part of Fife was then put into the new authority. While the Secretary of State had an excuse—after all, he was educated at an English public school—the Minister benefited from the excellent education service which was provided by the old Fife county and therefore had no excuse.
Only after the debacle of the Committee, where the Minister could not guarantee a majority for the defence of the clause, did the Government see reason and return Kincardine to Fife. That, of course, resulted in the collapse of the Falkirk and Clackmannan option.
I do not want to take up the time of the House with Falkirk, as my two colleagues who represent the bulk of that district may wish to do so. It would be churlish of Clackmannan to say that it was only the Government's desire to create a Stirling authority, or the wrongheadedness of their aim to lump it with Falkirk, which resulted in what we have at present. Although it has resulted in the creation of a unitary authority with a population of about 47,000, it must be said that, since 1980 —since when there has been overall Labour control—a series of outstanding councillors have worked with excellent chief executives to provide a local authority that has been imaginative and cost-effective in delivering services.
Every council house has both central heating and double glazing, and while Clackmannan may not be the only authority to offer a mortgage rescue scheme, it certainly is the smallest in Britain to do so.
We have heard about economies of scale. We have not heard about critical mass, but my hon. Friend the Member

for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) could have applied it in his arguments against Clackmannan. We are told that somehow there is a size below which an authority cannot fall. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central is paying attention to this point because it is central to a reasonable assessment of the chances of the authority taking root and giving services.
Under virtually every criterion which one could choose to apply to the size of a service-delivering body, Clackmannan seems to be below it. As for its being a district authority and providing the range of services which districts are required to do, size has not been a disadvantage so far. Indeed, it has been able to secure leveraged financing arrangements for a number of projects which, through input from outside agencies in both the public and private sectors, have realised ambitious schemes.
I shall mention only one which is contained in the excellent publicity material that has been provided for the debate. An investment of £100,000 by Clackmannan district council in the Tillicoultry urban renewal project has attracted support from other agencies to the order of some £5 million.
The authority has become noted for its pragmatism and its willingness to work with the private and public sectors. There are those who say that such a small authority will not have the resources or expertise to operate a proper education service or to make adequate social work provision. I have to say that the jury is still out on those charges. The problems certainly would have been far greater had it not been for the excellent facilities and staff which it will inherit from Central region.
It seems that, in the restructuring, Central region will be swept aside. It, too, fought a hard and straight campaign to defend its record. Unfortunately, such was the Government's commitment to creating the Tory island in the central belt around Stirling that Central was sacrificed. But why did the Government think that they could carve up Central and preserve Fife?
The two authorities are roughly the same size and they are coterminous in a number of areas. I realise that the answer is not simple and certainly there are problems with which Central region has had to deal with over the years. For a start, the name is not particularly attractive and the officers and councillors of Central region, in adopting the heart of Scotland concept as a defence, gave an indication of that.
There were other problems. Certainly in my area there was a view that insufficient attention had been paid to road development in Clackmannan and that the administration was too remote. It must be said that the news about substantial road improvements, the opening of local offices and the attempts to create local advisory groups was welcome, but I suspect that it will, sadly, be too late to mend the damage that has been caused by bruising disagreements on planning matters.
In the early stages of its life, Central region had a decade of apparent inertia and indifference. As one who has represented a constituency within Central region for the past 15 years, I must say that, if we had had the purposeful dedication and fight that we have had in the past five years for resources and services by Central region in the preceding 10 years, we might have seen a different authority emerging from the review procedure.
I am happy, however, that last night the Labour group of Central region for the first time appointed two members


from Clackmannan to be the leaders of the planning and economic development functions. I recognise that the region has attempted to bridge what has become a gap with some of the areas. That must be put on record as evidence of Central region's good intent and of the fact that it is a shame that the region will not feature in what goes ahead.
As the debates of previous months have shown and those during the Bill's remaining progress will show, the changes that we are discussing are, frankly, neither wanted nor needed. I am conscious that the people of Cowie and Fallin and Plean, for whom Tory politicians are as relevant as the dodo or the dinosaur, are in danger of being consigned to a right-wing-controlled Stirling district, if the Government's assumptions about the electoral outcome are correct.
8.30 pm
I am greatly worried about fragile communities, where one in three of the men is out of work, being sacrificed as some sort of adventure playground, which is what we would have in a Stirling unitary authority. The resolution of that problem is not to be found by splitting that part of Stirling off from Stirling. The resolution of a problem of that character would be the combination of Stirling and Clackmannan in one authority, where there could be a proper mixture of industry, commerce and the like.
Nothing said in Committee or this evening and nothing that is likely to be said in the days ahead will alleviate the fears and anxieties of my Catholic constituents in Clackmannan district, whose children will have to go to St. Modan's in Stirling—outwith the area where they can exercise any democratic control—to a school to which they will have to travel and for which the provision is unclear in a number of respects. I raised the matter on the day that the White Paper was published, but we have yet to receive the sort of assurances that will satisfy that community in my constituency.
While I congratulate my colleagues in Clackmannan on their achievements and wish them well, they will now have to prove the doomsters wrong. When Labour—in office —looks at local government, it will direct its attention to authorities like Clackmannan and Falkirk. If the administrative hurdles that lie in the way of change are overcome, the hardest thing about the changes might be that those small and potentially under-resourced authorities will have to make them work. If the Bill is enacted and they have to face that challenge, I can only wish them all the best. Their problems may well be greater, however, than any of us assume at present.
I would like to be proved wrong, but I fear that the Government's intentions in creating a Tory Stirling will force everything else into second place. That is why I can give only a mixed welcome to the success of my colleagues in Falkirk and Clackmannan in achieving what they wanted. I wish them well and will work with them to achieve the best, but on balance I am a little pessimistic.

Mr. Salmond: I support amendments Nos. 25 and 26, which I and my colleagues tabled, and I hope to be able to move them at the appropriate time.
The amendments concern the establishment of Banff and Buchan as a unitary authority within the new set-up, taking it out of the proposed Aberdeenshire option which

is favoured by the Government. There are a number of arguments behind the amendments and I shall deal with them as quickly as possible.
First, public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of the amendments. In a survey of 3,332 residents in Banff and Buchan, 93.6 per cent. were in favour of the Banff and Buchan option. The options presented were either Banff and Buchan or Aberdeenshire, as proposed by the Government. Among the remaining 6.4 per cent., there were more "don't knows" than people who supported the Aberdeenshire option.
In the regional elections, a week past Thursday, there was a further test of opinion on the options because, in the Cruden, Ugie and Boddam ward in my constituency, a sitting district councillor, who supports the Aberdeenshire option, ran against a sitting SNP regional councillor, who supports the Banff and Buchan option. I do not pretend that that was the only issue in the campaign, but it was none the less an interesting test of opinion. The sitting district councillor came bottom of the poll and was even beaten by the Conservative candidate, which was no mean achievement in my constituency.
On that test of opinion, there has been a resounding vote in favour of the Banff and Buchan option. The community councils in the constituency are in favour of that option; 17 out of 18 of the sitting district councillors and eight out of nine of the newly elected regional councillors are in favour, as is, of course, the Member of Parliament.
Therefore, as far as we can ascertain, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of a unitary authority in Banff and Buchan. The Minister had the grace to acknowledge that fact in Committee. In his remarks on the amendments he made it clear that he did not dispute the fact that public opinion favoured the Banff and Buchan option. Two months ago, when a cross-party delegation from the Banff and Buchan campaign met the Minister, he acknowledged the public opinion argument, but wanted to see some detailed financial estimates. As he can confirm, he was presented with a detailed assessment within a week from Richard Blackburn, the chief executive of Banff and Buchan district council.
That assessment considered the capital and revenue implications of the Banff and Buchan option compared with the Government's Aberdeenshire proposal. It was no macro-aggregate garbage in, garbage out, model, where one plugs in certain numbers and, given the assumptions, gets certain numbers back out. It was a detailed estimate —a detailed look at the proposed committee structure, the cost of amalgamating computer systems and the travel costs of the various options. Each and every aspect of the finances of the two proposals was examined.
The Blackburn report concluded that there would be an immediate £5 million saving on capital costs with the Banff and Buchan option and a stream of revenue savings, equivalent to a £25 saving in the council tax in the district. Significantly for other hon. Members who might be interested, there would also be savings in the other two component authorities concerned—Kincardine and Deeside and Gordon. As far as I am aware, that was the only detailed financial assessment of the proposals. It was not a global overview, but a detailed blow-by-blow assessment of the proposals' implications and it is a very powerful document.
What is wrong with the Aberdeenshire authority proposal? It has attracted very little public support. In the original consultation document only five responses were in


favour of that option, compared with 63 in favour of Banff and Buchan. The Aberdeenshire option therefore has little or no support. However, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has given it support and caused great offence in my constituency, given that in the Standing Committee he was able to make a case—with cross-party support—on grounds of public opinion for the adjustment of boundaries that immediately concern his constituency.
There was some annoyance in my constituency about the fact that he professed in The Press and Journal today his opposition to Banff and Buchan as a unitary authority. If the Government maintain their position, which is totally against public opinion in my constituency, fingers will be pointed in the direction of the hon. Gentleman as someone who put a spoke in the wheel of a proposal that has overwhelming public support.
Aberdeenshire is a doughnut option—not because the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside supports it, but because, like a Polo mint, it will have a hole in the middle. The proposed authority will have no centre, because its natural centre is the city of Aberdeen.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made an excellent point in Committee—to the irritation of some of his colleagues—when he demanded to know of the Minister where he thought the headquarters of the proposed Aberdeenshire authority would be. Any detailed assessment would prove that there are no suitable chambers or headquarters within the proposed Aberdeenshire area equipped to cope with an authority of 46 members, who on a reasonable estimate would require 6,300 sq m of accommodation at their headquarters.
Currently, in Aberdeenshire there are a number of headquarters and district councils. Viewmont in Stonehaven accommodates 12 members of Kincardine and Deeside district council. Gordon House in Inverurie copes with 16 members of Gordon district council. The biggest of the current headquarters is county hall in Banff in my constituency which, in the old Banffshire authority, coped with 30 members. But none of the current headquarters buildings could remotely cope with the sort of council that is being suggested in the Government's current proposals.
That means that the first act of the new Aberdeenshire authority, if it comes to fruition, will be a straight choice of either establishing its headquarters in the present regional headquarters of Woodhill house in Aberdeen, outside its own local authority area; or, alternatively, building a purpose-built, high-cost new local authority headquarters somewhere in the new Aberdeenshire. I cannot believe that anybody would seriously argue that the new authority will endear itself to the population either by headquartering outside its own area or by embarking on a high-cost building scheme. It is a nonsense proposal.
The authority area, as suggested by the Government, encompasses 630,000 hectares. It is only marginally smaller in size than Dumfries and Galloway and, under the current proposals, only Highland is bigger in size than these two. While Highland and Dumfries and Galloway are existing regional councils, the proposal would involve the creation of a new authority of that enormous size.
As I understand it, the argument in favour of Aberdeenshire put by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is for a strong buffer authority around the city of Aberdeen. Yet Aberdeenshire without Banff and Buchan would still have a population of 125,520—not just a substantial authority in terms of the Government map, but

much bigger than the authorities around the city of Edinburgh, for example. That is bigger than West Lothian, Midlothian and East Lothian. Absolutely crucial to the calculation is the fact that both Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside have rapidly growing populations.
In the comprehensive submissions that have been put forward by the Banff and Buchan campaign committee, a number of examples have been given to demonstrate why Banff and Buchan—although it has some similarities—is quite different in complexion from the two authorities, Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside, with which it is proposed to lump it. One difference is obviously population change.
From 1981 to 2001, both Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside are projected to be rapidly growing population areas, with growth rates of 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. In contrast, Banff and Buchan has a relatively stable population, with a projected population growth of only 5 per cent.
Figures in the census for commuting demonstrate the difference between the authorities. In Banff and Buchan only 6 per cent. of the working population commute, presumably, to the city of Aberdeen. In Gordon and in Kincardine and Deeside, the percentages of commuters are 35 per cent. and 32 per cent. The Government are proposing to lump together two fast-growing commuting authorities with an authority which has a more stable, non-commuting population. The tensions implicit in that arrangement, with the natural demands for capital resources of the two authorities which have growing populations and will require increased capital costs, are evident for all to see.
I suspect that we could approach the local government map in terms of unitary authorities in two ways. According to the proposal that has been put forward, Banff and Buchan would be by no means the smallest unitary authority on the map—certainly not after the new changes have been made. In fact, it would be only the tenth smallest. It would be bigger than Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles, Stirling, Moray, East Renfrew, Clackmannan, East Lothian and Mid-Lothian.
I do not think that the Government can hold the argument that a population area with gross domestic product per capita of £10,000 which is very high in Scottish terms—and a substantial economically active a nd enterprising population is not capable of sustaining a unitary authority.
The choice in terms of unitary authorities seems clear. The Government could go for a strategic unit which would allow local authorities to have strategic planning roles. If it did that, the natural authority would not be Aberdeenshire; it would be the Grampian region. Alternatively, it could go with the argument which tries to meet community interests—a unitary authority that commands the loyalty and support of the people who live in that authority. If that is the path which the Minister wants to go down, there can be no gainsaying the fact that the appropriate unit in the north-east corner of Scotland is Banff and Buchan.
In its 20 years of existence as a district, Banff and Buchan has commanded an enormous degree of loyalty from its population—as has been demonstrated by the number of people who have rallied to the cause of seeing it survive as a unitary authority. I hope very much that the


Minister will be able to give some indication that the Government will now pay some attention to the force of public opinion in my constituency.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Earlier in the debate, in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), the Minister referred to Dundee and to Government amendment No. 287. I wish to speak about that for a few minutes.
The Minister said that he had responded to the excellent case presented by the city of Dundee district council, with the support of all the political parties represented on that council—Conservative, Scottish National party and Labour. He also said that he was responding to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who made and expanded on several points in the Standing Committee. In column 215 of the Committee Hansard the Minister said:
I expect to bring forward amendments that would reflect the case made by my hon. Member for Dundee, East.
I was present at the Committee sitting, but I cannot remember any blinding flash of light striking my hon. Friend at that time, although I recall him saying that he was grateful to the Minister for what he had said. In column 216, my hon. Friend went on to say:
I recognise, however, that the Minister is being very positive and helpful towards the people of Dundee."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10 February 1994; c. 215–16]
If what is contained in the Government's amendments and what the Minister has said today are supposed to be helpful to Dundee, my hon. Friend will wish to intervene and perhaps to have a word with the Minister after the debate to clarify one or two things. The people of Dundee East Conservative Association, of which the Minister's father is a formidable member, will also want clarification. The Minister knows that his father does not agree with what is being said in the Chamber today, which will dramatically affect the possible success of a single-purpose authority in Dundee.
The Minister attempted to allay our fears by saying that he had responded to the majority of comments made by Dundee district council. He gave us the cemetery and Balgarthno, and we certainly welcome that; it is very necessary for industrial use.

Mr. McAllion: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister conceded on Birkhill cemetery only because nobody in that cemetery can vote for the Conservative party in elections?

Mr. Ross: I would not want to disagree with anything that my hon. Friend says. The people of Dundee are grateful that the Minister has given us Balgarthno. We require it if we are to continue the fine work being undertaken in Dundee to help to regenerate the area.
The Minister knows Dundee very well—as I have said, he has family connections there—and he knows that the people, we are seeking to attract are saying that, to attract industry, we need high-quality housing in the area. The weight of the argument put by local authorities, by all political parties, by my hon. Friend in Committee, and by both him and me when we came to see the Minister, is that

we needed Belldovan and Balmuir so as to have high-quality housing which would add to the attractiveness of Dundee as a place where industry might locate.
We need Strathmartine hospital for the same reason, although whether it should be closed is another matter. When that hospital is closed and the building no longer serves the health board, there will be an existing service site which will be of extreme benefit to any local authority seeking to expand its housing. That is another reason why we argued for Strathmartine hospital.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said in an intervention, it is essential that Mylnefield and the crop research institute based there should be retained within the Dundee boundary. The Minister knows of the excellent work being undertaken by Mylnefield and Dundee university, the one complementing the other. If that is outside the boundary, it will be more difficult for the two organisations to co-operate.
Equally, the Minister knows that much work has been carried out by Dundee district council on the Tay estuary nature reserve. He knows that a plan was put forward, in which Perth district did not wish to participate, and Dundee district council was prepared to continue with the nature reserve. We are close to designating that area a nature reserve, but it cannot be made a nature reserve if we know for a start that Longforgan is going to the new Perth area and that the reserve and the concept of the reserve and the estuary will not be supported by Perth district council.
The Minister is, in effect, killing the possibility of creating the Tay estuary nature reserve, and people who are interested in wildlife and the countryside will be very disappointed. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East says that the Minister is nodding as though he is agreeing. He has it in his power simply to push his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's case aside, since he is summing up, and to accept the proposals succinctly made and well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East in Committee.
There are other reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East made clear in Committee—I am sure that other hon. Members will refer to this today—a little event took place just over a week ago.

Mr. Foulkes: On 5 May.

Mr. Ross: On 5 May, as my hon. Friend reminds us. On that occasion there were some interesting results, because two of the local Conservative councillors made great play of supporting the Government's position during those elections. In the case of Longforgan and Sidlaw, former Councillor Angus Brown was the defender. He made it his job to go out and work to ensure that Longforgan and Sidlaw would be outside the new Dundee boundaries and he was rewarded by being sacked by the Scottish National party, which took that seat. It seems that the local population in Longforgan and Sidlaw rejected the Government's arguments as well. They did not want to be associated with what was intended to be a Conservative-controlled district in the future.
In Monifieth, a long-standing Conservative councillor, Mrs. Dorothy Portillo, made it clear before she stepped down that she did not agree that Monifieth should be taken out of Dundee. She was replaced by Councillor Donald McNaughton, who is currently a district councillor on Dundee district council. He was a candidate, but when he tried to become a regional councillor he had his head


chopped off by the SNP. It does not seem to have done the Government any good. The gerrymandering has paid off. The Secretary of State has the opportunity now to rectify the nonsense that he has created and to correct the mistakes made by the draftsmen and draftswomen when they tried to ignore the case put forward by Dundee district council.
There is also the case of the vanishing petition. The Government listened in Committee and made great play of listening to local communities. In the local community of Longforgan, a concerned individual put a petition in the local grocer's shop and left it there so that the people who used that grocer's shop—almost to a person, they were people from the village—could sign to say if they agreed. The petition said:
Save our village … Keep the village of Invergowrie within the same authority as Dundee.
That petition was submitted to the Minister on 6 or 7 April this year, and it seems to have vanished. To this day, the person who sent it to the Minister is still awaiting an acknowledgement. We are not even sure whether the people had signed the petition and whether the Minister took it into account when he reached his conclusions.

Mr. Stewart: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: The Minister nods. Did he reflect that when he spoke to the people whom he directed to draw the lines on the new map? Did he tell them about the petition from Longforgan?

Mr. Stewart: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: Did he tell his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the petition? Did he ask him to comment on it? Did he ask his hon. Friend to investigate whether the people of Invergowrie agreed with him and wished to go outwith Dundeed?

Mr. Stewart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The Minister shakes his head. He did not ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed. He is not here at the moment and I apologise for mentioning him when he is not here, but I am sure that he would be disappointed to know that his constituents in Longforgan do not wish him to be their Member of Parliament if he happens to be selected in the future and the Bill is passed. They want to stay inside Dundee, as the people of Dundee wish to retain those aspects of the outlying areas that were submitted by Dundee district council.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said in Committee, the gerrymandering will have to be corrected. When a Scottish Parliament comes into being, it will have to make it clear that the place for Monifieth and Longforgan is in a unitary authority within Dundee.

Mr. Foulkes: I should love to spend some time talking about the astonishing decision in relation to Clackmannan, which makes a mockery of the whole Bill and shows that there is no strategy behind the Government's proposals, but as time is limited I shall concentrate on amendment 42, which I hope the Minister will read. It is on page 1834 and, in addition to being signed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who are Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, it is signed by my hon. Friends the Members

for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—and, of course, myself.
The amendment is in favour of an all-Ayrshire council. Ayrshire is a long-standing historical unit, very similar to Fife, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) knows only too well. The arguments in favour of an all-Ayrshire authority are identical to those in favour of a Fife authority. The Minister argued in favour of Fife in Committee.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I went to meet the Minister with a non-party delegation from Ayrshire, members of the delegation asked the Minister, "What is the difference?" They wanted to know why the Government were putting forward a strategy for Fife which was different from that for Ayrshire. The Minister was unable to answer them. They could not detect any difference in the arguments for an all-Fife authority from those that they put forward for an all-Ayrshire authority. Nevertheless, the Government propose to split Ayrshire into three, which is artificial, more expensive, much more complicated and unwanted, and the authorities will not be able to organise strategic services.
It is artificial because Ayrshire is a traditional unit. Kyle and Carrick was carved out to try to satisfy the Conservatives in Kyle and Carrick. Given the results on 5 May, that will not be the case any more, but that was the original strategy. Cunninghame was then carved out to satisfy the councillors—just the councillors—there, leaving Kilmarnock and Loudoun to be thrown into an artificial union with Cumnock and Doon valley.
9 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I are the best of friends—councillors in Kilmarnock and Loudoun and in Cumnock and Doon valley also get on well together—but no justification for the measure has been put forward, except that those areas were left over once Cunninghame, north Ayrshire, and Kyle and Carrick, south Ayrshire, were created. If an argument can be put forward for Clackmannan being a single-tier all-purpose authority, it could equally be put forward for Cumnock and Doon valley. If the Cumnock and Doon Valley authority had been selfish enough and concerned only about its own interests, it might have put that argument forward. All credit is due to Cumnock and Doon Valley for thinking beyond the interests of individual councillors to the best provision of services such as education, social services and roads.
The Government's proposal would also be more expensive. The document that the Minister received from the delegation that my hon. Friend and I took along showed that it would cost council tax payers £2 per week more. I hope that the Minister has read that document. He said that he would pass it on to the Secretary of State and consult him. Why should the people of Ayrshire pay £2 a week extra for a split that they do not want? That paper clearly showed that there is a disparity of office accommodation. The shortfall amounts to 180,000 sq ft because headquarters will have to be created for south Ayrshire, north Ayrshire and east Ayrshire and the offices are in entirely the wrong place.
The proposal is more complicated because we shall have not a single-tier authority but a multi-tier authority,


probably with as many as five tiers—water and sewerage, fire and police, various joint boards and the councils. It will be much more complicated and much less efficient.
The proposal is also unwanted. Community council after community council in the area, from Prestwick to Mauchline and up to Kilmore, have said that they want an all-Ayrshire authority. Many of my hon. Friends will have received an excellent letter from our old friend Bob Beattie, for whom we have great respect, arguing that case. The Ayrshire chamber of commerce, and businessmen in the area, have also argued the case. Bishop Maurice Taylor of the Roman Catholic Church and all the representatives of the Church of Scotland have argued the case for an all-Ayrshire authority. So the three-way split is not wanted by the representatives of the people of Ayrshire.
On strategic services, the three authorities will be unable to run services such as roads, social services and education. The paper presented to the Minister shows that they would have difficulty even providing a new secondary school in terms of the new capital building programmes. Those small authorities will be hobbled and unable to provide the full facilities required, such as vital special services for the mentally and physically handicapped, through the capital building programmes.
After my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I had taken a delegation to see the Minister, David Donaldson said that he had received a courteous hearing from the Minister, as indeed he had. I was about to say that he was non-political, and he is now, although he used to be a Tory candidate. Someone who was a Tory candidate in the 1950s is wise to be non-political now. He said that he hoped for a positive response on Report and added:
If the Government proceeds with its planned three way split it will mean the people of Ayrshire are unnecessarily disadvantaged, facing increased costs, reduced services or even both.
The Minister gave the delegation a very courteous hearing and we are hopeful of a positive response at the Report Stage.
I hope that the Government's answer will be to accept amendment No. 42 and the wishes of the people of Ayrshire for a continuation of Ayrshire and the services that it can provide. The arguments which are so powerful in relation to Fife are equally powerful in Ayrshire. I hope that the Minister will recognise that today.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) opened the debate by suggesting that there was no consensus for change in respect of single-tier local authorities. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) contradicted that view, and I believe that he was right. At the last general election, all hon. Members in the Chamber said in our manifestos that we aimed for single-tier authorities, and the Government are delivering.
I wish to speak mainly on amendment No. 42. I shall not repeat the words that I used in Committee on Thursday 10 February. What I said then stands now. I have heard nothing new from Opposition Members today that would change my view on the standing of Ayrshire. I urge Ministers to hold firm with the opinion of the Committee, which accepted without question the intention to create three authorities in Ayrshire. There is all-party support within Cunninghame council for a north Cunningham authority. In Kilmarnock and Loudoun there is majority support for it. In Kyle and Carrick there is majority support among the elected representatives. My hon. Friend the Minister cannot turn his back on those factors.
While I do not want to repeat my own words in Committee, I should like to quote those of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who, acknowledging that he was acting as the ventriloquist for his hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), said:
There is widespread support in Cunninghame for the proposition that if reorganisation is to go ahead, it should be on the basis of three authorities".
I agreed with the hon. Gentleman then, and I agree with him now. He went on:
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North convened a public meeting in Largs last summer, immediately after publication of the White Paper. He set out his own approach —that if there is to be a single-tier local government structure, the most viable politically attainable option to go for is for Cunninghame."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10 February 1994; c. 263–64.]
That is to say, north Ayrshire.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to stick with the principle of local accountability and local responsibility. The proposals for Ayrshire attain just that.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are the only ones that relate to Lanarkshire. We in the county are used to thinking of it as a whole. This applies to travel to work, to education, to health provision, more recently to the Lanarkshire Development Agency, and to the immense task of replacing Ravenscraig and the steel industry, whose loss has left such a big hole not only in Motherwell but in the whole life of Lanarkshire.
Even with the present Motherwell district, we have to work with area housing offices to bring services near to the people. That would have been perfectly possible in a Lanarkshire solution for services that need to be close to the people. The county of Lanarkshire would have been a viable, defensible solution. Yes, it would have been a single-tier authority with an electorate larger than that of the city of Glasgow, and no doubt that would have frightened the Government to death. Instead, the Government's proposals have all the disadvantages of widely dispersed authorities in north and south Lanarkshire, and none of the coherence of areas corresponding to local communities.
North Lanarkshire has never been a regional or sub-regional entity in its own right for the delivery of any local government or national Government services. It is not a city; it is a loose amalgam of small and medium-sized communities. It has no centre and no north-south direct public communication links. It lacks any coherent social, community or journey-to-work links. The proposal totally disregards natural and man-made barriers in terms of transport and land form, which will not be removed or easily overcome by any local government reorganisation.
Faced with this, the Motherwell district council proposed three new local government areas in Lanarkshire, without the option of the whole and without the option of merely local communities. It proposed the adoption of the natural boundaries marked by the M8 and M74, dividing Lanarkshire into three radial zones whose communication links with Glasgow also offer the advantages of internal communications within each of the areas.
The district council did its best to secure the support of other districts—in particular, Clydesdale—which would have joined Motherwell in that pattern. I did my best to put


the case to colleagues and to the Minister, and I think that the Minister tried, rather belatedly, to secure consensus, even among such people as pass as Tories in Lanarkshire, of whom there are not many. He failed, as, I am afraid, did the council and myself, to secure the necessary consensus to produce a logical solution for Lanarkshire.
The facts remain, however, and the ground will not go away. The proposed boundaries have no logic and I do not see them surviving any proposals that will emerge, either from the Government or from Labour's local government reform, which will be based on different principles.
The lesson for us in Motherwell is that we have to continue working constructively with our neighbouring communities, as we have done in the immense task of industrial redevelopment, and to build future proposals together with our neighbouring communities so that we can put forward agreed proposals which have mutual confidence and reflect a common strength of view to the mutual benefit of us all. I am sorry that the Government have not given us such a lead in their approach to this round of local government reform, which will in no way last.

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall always be grateful to the late Willie Ross for giving me the opportunity to serve on the Royal Commission for Local Government in Scotland, which sat between 1966 and 1969. It was from its recommendations that the regional structure, of which Highland is one, emerged.
The contrast between what Willie did and what the Government have done could not be more marked. Acting against a background of urgent pressure for reform—and there was urgent pressure at that time—he appointed an independent and politically balanced commission. From the House, apart from myself, a Liberal, there was the late Tom Fraser from the Labour party and the late Betty Harvie Anderson from the Conservatives, both of whom I came to regard with great respect and affection.
It was a consensual exercise, slow and careful, and John Wheatley was an immaculately fair chairman. I am very sad to see that work thrown away, for the motivation for change now is certainly party political. I am quite sure that, had the wayward ways of politics produced, in Strathclyde regional council, for example, a Conservative majority, we would not be debating legislation tonight; we would not be talking about change at all. Particularly in Ayrshire, Stirling and Renfrew, change, not reform, is the right word.
My experience on the royal commission leads me to oppose amendment No. 169 in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), with whom in most matters I am in happy equilibrium.
I am well aware of the enthusiasm for all-purpose authorities. The note of dissent signed by Betty and me on the royal commission's report would have achieved it on a regional basis. We opposed the two-tier structure, not simply because of the separation of housing and social work, to which the Seebohm committee was unanimously opposed, but also because we felt that the alternative was regions with the main functions and genuinely strong community councils based on the old burghs, with general competence powers. That would have worked well and would have allowed also for devolution within the regions, which Highland has already operated and looks to improve.
Before turning briefly and specifically to the amendment, I remind the House of the principles of local government on which we on Wheatley agreed, and give the House a one-sentence quotation from the report. They were power, effectiveness, local democracy and local involvement. What did we say about power?
What we have always had in view is a type of structure in which there could be a real shift of power from central to local government.
Sadly, the opposite has taken place. In Highland, by maintaining one council, I feel we can at least retain some of it.
9.15 pm
For a long time I represented the largest constituency in the United Kingdom. It covers 4,900 square miles and is larger than Cyprus. I now represent the second largest constituency—the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye is, by a small margin, the largest constituency—and I am not impressed by arguments on size. Better travel links and technology have overcome the problems. I have no doubt that Highland is a coherent region with common feelings and culture and a need to work together.
It is worth stressing that the retention of Highland region results in minimal functional change. The only major transfer is housing, which I deplore, but it is in decline as a function. I do not agree that the quality of democratic control will be diminished. To the contrary,I consider that during the past two decades Highland region has demonstrated that it is a sensitive and efficient local authority.
On the views of the existing district councils, Lochaber, Badenoch and Strathspey, and Inverness in my constituency favour the two-council option of the amendment. Skye and Lochalsh, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, does not, as he said. By agreement with him, I speak for them, as I did in Parliament for nearly 20 years.
The chief executive of Skye and Lochalsh, David Noble, produced a paper setting out the unanimous views of his council that is admirably succinct but too long to allow me, in the tight time frame available, to read it all out. However, I shall read two paragraphs that encapsulate the argument for one council against two clearly and directly. Mr. Noble says:
The administrative centres for the two Councils will almost certainly be sited within a few miles of each other, probably in Inverness and Dingwall. In practical terms, these centres will be no more local to peripheral areas
that also applies to Caithness in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland—
than a single Council's administrative centre in Inverness.
Two Councils will need joint working arrangements for a whole range of vital services. These include information technology, specialist education services, European issues (vital in consideration of the Objective 1 arguments) and refuse disposal. There will also be statutory joint committees for Police, Fire and Valuation. The single Council will give clearer accountability and more effective democratic control of these services.
I agree with him. In the case of Nairn, after what I can only describe as some confusion—I am sure that the Minister will agree—it is clear that it wishes to be part of the Highland region and also supports a single Highland council.
As hon. Members will understand from my preliminary remarks, I am not happy about the Government's general approach to local government change. What they have


done over the past decade has weakened local government hugely, and what they propose will weaken it further. However, in the case of the Highland region, they are right, and staying with one council for the highlands makes sense.

Mr. Lang: I am conscious that in intervening at this stage of the debate, I am doing so before the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has been here throughout it, has had the chance to contribute. However, as time is moving on, I hope that he will understand that it is appropriate for me to respond to the points made so far. The highlands were not discussed in Committee and there was general agreement that it would be appropriate to discuss the issues involving the highlands on Report.
Before addressing the proposals specifically, I shall respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) about the Wheatley commission. I have great respect for what it did; had it not done the work that it did, it would have been impossible for us to contemplate embarking on the reform of local government without some sort of commission. It was the codification and work done by Wheatley that gave us the foundation on which we could build. The vast majority of boundaries are either regional or district boundaries as set out in Wheatley.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Wheatley commission's proposals were amended substantially and by the House from 48 to 65 in major ways that I could cover, but which have been covered in earlier discussions.
I deal now with the question of the highland region and amendment No. 169. I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). It is a difficult issue; it is one of the most difficult issues of all the boundaries. In taking the view that I and the Government do, we have given close thought to the conflicting pressures of, on the one hand, local loyalties, the pressure to respond to local issues and keep local government as local as possible, and, on the other, the need for efficiency founded on a strong resource base.
As we have heard, there are genuinely conflicting views on what the new structure for the highlands should be. In response to our public consultation, support has divided between a single Highland authority and a number of smaller units based on a range of possibilities, such as districts, groups of districts or counties. Proposals have since emerged for a two-way split, advanced by the Association of Highland District Councils and reflected in the amendments before the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary of State, met the hon. Members for Caithness and Sunderland and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, with representatives of the association, to hear at first hand the case for a two-way split. I have had separate meetings with the association and Highland regional council. I pay tribute to the positive and constructive way in which the case has been presented by both sides.
I acknowledge that the north-south split is a genuine compromise—proposed by the association—for those who have concerns over a single Highland authority proposal. I acknowledge also a number of letters in recent weeks in support of the two-way split from various businesses operating in the highlands area: community councils, individuals and so on. But that support—also indicated by

a survey, to which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber referred—must, of course, be balanced against the views of those in favour of a single Highland authority. Strong support for that option has come from the business community, the voluntary sector, community councils and individuals. Supporters of a Highland council include Highlands and Islands Enterprise; the highland branch of the CBI; the Highland health board; the Scottish Landowners Federation; and a number of community councils.
Skye and Lochalsh district council also favours the single Highland authority and has entered into preliminary discussions with the regional council on how service delivery and decision making can best be decentralised. The Government attach great importance to the issue of decentralisation in those large rural authorities. Moreover, Nairn district council has moved recently from its position of favouring a link with Moray to one of fully supporting a single Highland council.
Of course, there is no easy reconciliation of the conflicting arguments, and no solution will please everyone, but there is little doubt about the integrity of the highlands in terms of history, geography, culture and recreation. People identify strongly with the highlands. A survey commissioned by Ross and Cromarty district council revealed that 82 per cent. of respondents strongly identified with the highlands. Beneath the Highland level, I believe that the identity is at county rather than community level. In an area such as the highlands, whether there are one or two councils, the focus must be on effective decentralisation to ensure a genuinely local input to the service delivery and decision taking.
Much of the highlands—around 60 per cent.—is focused on Inverness and the Moray Firth area. The validity of drawing a line through that area, as proposed by the north-south split, and by amendment No. 169, must be questioned. Indeed, Skye and Lochalsh district council has pointed out that it does not fit readily into either north or south, and that there is no north highlands or south highlands identity. That view was reinforced by several responses to our consultation. It has also been pointed out that dividing the western highlands between two local authority areas could fragment efforts to develop important local policies relating to the Gaelic language, crofting, tourism and fishing.
Overall, I share the view of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. I believe that there are compelling arguments in favour of the single authority, in terms of identity, service delivery, and economic planning and development. While it is not necessarily an overriding factor, there are also clear financial advantages. It is worth pointing out that some 85 per cent. of resources in terms of major local authority services are already delivered at regional level.
Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte touched on the question of cost, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, and has, I understand, suggested that one council would cost £4.4 million less than the status quo, whereas two would cost £6.2 million more than the status quo.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Secretary of State, in answering the representations that have been made from those who favour two highlands councils, has made the perfectly fair point that it was a matter that could best be deliberated on in the forum of the


House. Although we have heard two powerful speeches presenting each side of the argument, they have been brief, and many arguments have not been deployed by either of the protagonists.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would not be sensible to conclude the argument here tonight, and that it should be continued in the upper House? He could then listen to some of the arguments about the quality, as well as the quantity, of democracy—arguments such as that advanced by two former Conservative parliamentary candidates in my constituency, who point out that only a third of the seats in the region have been contested since the local government reorganisation. There is indeed a sense in which the north highlands are quite different from the more developed conurbations of Inverness and Fort William.

Mr. Lang: Given the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and experience of his constituency and the highlands in general, I accept that he deserves the recognition of such distinctions. I also accept his complete right to argue the case, and to continue to argue it beyond the completion of the Bill's stages in this House. The debates in another place are a matter for their lordships; if the hon. Gentleman seeks to interest them, they may well be interested in pursuing the issue further.
I think that I owe it to the House to give a firm steer in regard to the Government's view as a result of the extensive consultations that have taken place, and the careful consideration that we have given to all the points that have been made. As I said earlier, they were presented very well and comprehensively by both the Association of Highland District Councils and the region.
At the end of the day, it is the Government's considered view that the best way forward for the highlands area is to establish a single Highland authority, with effective decentralisation involving area committees. I think that that would combine the many benefits of one council, and reflect the local loyalties that shone through very clearly in response to the public consultation no less effectively than a two-way split. Against that background, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment No. 169.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am aware of the time constraints, but I should not like the debate to pass without some reference to the record of Strathclyde regional council. It is a first-class council,, one of the best in the history of the country. Unfortunately, if the Bill goes through, Strathclyde will be fully appreciated only when it no longer exists and people no longer have access to the services that it provides.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred to the Wheatley commission. I am afraid that we in Cambuslang and Rutherglen do not have such fond memories of that commission: it took away our independence and made us part of Glasgow district council. The alliance has not been a happy one, and certainly does not reflect the wish of people in Cambuslang and Rutherglen to have their own community identity. It is not a question of any resentment of Glasgow people; we in Cambuslang and Rutherglen are used to a much smaller unit, and we simply feel that Glasgow is too big.
Community campaigns have been mentioned. I do not know why the Government do not take account of the 15,000–signature petition presented to Parliament by Cambuslang and Rutherglen, the aggregate attendance of

more than 3,000 people at public meetings and the fact that 3,000 people have sent written communications to the Scottish Office. That local community campaign raised more than £3,000—money that was raised for the community and the aims that it supported.
The Government have laid themselves open to charges of gerrymandering by creating councils in different areas of the country with a smaller population than Cambuslang and Rutherglen. I am not necessarily opposed to that; there is a genuine difference between me and some of my hon. Friends in that regard. I believe that the case for or against smaller councils is still to be proved. I recognise that what is happening to Clackmannan is the wish of local people, and time alone will tell whether it can work.
I congratulate Clackmannan council on getting what it fought for—but it must be pointed out that larger populations, in Cambuslang and Rutherglen and elsewhere, have been denied the opportunity of a community focus by the Government's plans.
The proposal for Cambuslang and Rutherglen is the establishment of a South Lanarkshire authority. Although the Government may be able to say that the people in the area concerned voted for South Lanarkshire in Glasgow district council's referendum, it must be said that my colleagues in the district council badly mismanaged that referendum. They allowed the Government to say that my constituents favour South Lanarkshire. If Cambuslang and Rutherglen end up in South Lanarkshire council, the blame will fairly be laid at the door of Glasgow district council.
In common with some of my hon. Friends, I have not moved amendments because the consensus on the Opposition side of the House is that the Government are determined to have their way. I spoke at length with Ministers, to try to persuade them otherwise. In common with my hon. Friends, I am not into gesture politics and moving an empty amendment, when I know full well that the Government will not accept it. Many of my hon. Friends are in the same position.
I warn and advise the Government that the Cambuslang and Rutherglen cause and case has not ended yet and will be pursued in the other place. I am totally opposed to the Bill and shall vote against it—even if it includes a Cambuslang and Rutherglen council. The motivation behind it is the negation of local democracy and taking power away from local authorities. It is clearly anti-democratic.
If the Bill is passed, we shall delay it as long as possible, until we are nearer to a Labour Government. Even if it eventually ends up on the statute book, a Labour Government will destroy the legislation, make sure that it is not implemented and, through a Scottish Parliament, have a proper independent review of Scottish local government.

Mrs. Irene Adams: I shall speak to amendment No. 297, and I am delighted that Ralston, West Dykebar, Paisley, North and Paisley, South will return to Renfrew district. That is undoubtedly due to endless representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on behalf of that area.
I was denied a place on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, having to pull out to allow the Secretary of State to skulk away and leave the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to present the Bill's


gerrymandering proposals. There will be none more delighted than the people of Ralston, who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum against being included in Eastwood district council. I am sure that was in no small way due to the fact that Paisley grammar school refused to opt out of Strathclyde education authority, with 80 per cent. of parents voting to remain within it.
If I ever doubted that gerrymandering was going on, I have no doubt now. In returning Ralston and West Dykebar to Renfrew district, the hon. Member for Eastwood has left the Tory safe haven that is his parliamentary constituency a council area.
What of the people of Barrhead, who have no connection with an Eastwood council? Barrhead has been a borough for 100 years. Newton kirk, which has been part of the Paisley presbytery since the Reformation, will now be contained in a different local authority. Only 2 per cent. of the people living in Barrhead work in Eastwood.
Can the Minister give any historical, geographical or other reason—other than political gerrymandering—for taking Barrhead into Eastwood district council? There is none. Apart from anything else, how can the Minister justify the cost of taking Barrhead out of Renfrew district council, which will otherwise remain intact, and putting it into Eastwood? There is no logical, historic or geographical reason for that action.
I have no doubt that the result of the Ralston by-election persuaded the Minister to put that area back into Renfrew district. When the numbers were added up, he was not sure that bringing Ralston in would leave him with a safe enough Tory majority in the council—so Ralston went back to Renfrew district.
I plead with the Minister at this late stage to show some decency and put Barrhead back where it belongs in Renfrew district council.

Mr. Dalyell: Having heard the Minister give encouragement to Queensferry community council, may I ask what his attitude is to starred amendments Nos. 302 and 303 on the question of Queensferry coming out of Edinburgh and moving into West Lothian?
I have two questions on costs. The COSLA report identifies the fact that, due to the changes in the number of authorities carrying out the various functions, there will be significant variations in the numbers of employees with the individual skills and status required by the new authorities compared to the old authorities.
That inevitable mismatch will mean that large numbers of staff will qualify for redundancy or early retirement because they will not be able to find a suitable post in the new authorities. At the same time, a large number of new staff will require to be employed to fill the additional specialist posts, which will be created in other services such as education and social work. The key point is that those new staff will not be replacing the staff being made redundant, but will be filling new posts requiring different skills.
Does the Minister accept that that mis-match will occur, irrespective of the net change in total staff numbers that may eventually result from the reorganisation? If so, how has that factor been taken into account in the Government's estimate of transitional costs? May I add that some of us have doubts about whether the Minister was legally correct in his suggestions that an authority could pay

compensation and reappoint people to similar or not very different posts? There is some doubt about the legal interpretation of the Minister's implications that somehow or another pots of gold were to go to certain employees, unless the Government acted otherwise. That is not legally possible as I understand it.
My second point is that there will also be a mis-match in the availability of property for the new authorities—a matter which was discussed at some length in Committee and to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred. In some of the new authority areas, there will be a surplus of property, but, in many instances, it will be virtually impossible to sell or lease it because of its location or character, while in other authorities, there will be a shortage of suitable property to accommodate all the staff required.
There will be an added problem with the need to adapt certain premises for specialised purposes such as information technology and communications systems. In Committee, we were never given any assurances about that matter, other than that the costs of the IT aspects would amount to £40 million or more. Those questions were never answered in Committee.
How have those factors been taken into account in the Government's estimate of transitional costs? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the necessary capital consents will be made available for the new authorities as required to permit them to locate all staff in suitable accommodation in the areas of their authorities? I should like answers to those questions.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I rise to support the amendments in respect of my constituency, in a last-ditch effort to retrieve the position in my area. I have never done this before, but I am speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who would have contributed to our proceedings, if only they had been better managed. That is not a criticism of the Opposition Whip, who has done a good job tonight, but I know that he has been bullied by the Front-Bench spokesmen.
It is quite the most ill-considered Bill of which I have had experience in the 15 years that I have served in the House. I cannot remember such a badly drafted piece of legislation. It has everything to do with trying to retrieve a situation for a political party which has all but vanished from the political scene in Scotland. This is now a Government without authority, but certainly a Government who govern in a wholly authoritarian way.
My constituency, which is to be the subject of this gerrymandering, was never part of Lanarkshire. It was always part of Dunbartonshire. Traditionally, the services came from Dunbartonshire; traditionally, there was a county council which provided the major services. They continued through Strathclyde regional council when it took over from the county council. Only the health service and social work are located in the Monklands district into which it is proposed that we be placed. Many patients are referred to Glasgow hospitals and not always to Monklands general hospital. Lanarkshire has never provided services for my constituency.
We do not even go shopping in north Lanarkshire. I am a director of a bus company which offers bus services throughout Lanarkshire. However, there are no bus communications with the area to which it is proposed that we should move. The Tories will be pleased to hear that the


bus company is driven by market forces. However, there is no market for bus services in Airdrie. No service provision has been made, simply because there is no demand for it.
Cumbernauld is its own community, and it has developed in that direction. Kilsyth is its own community, but it is heavily dependent on the economic provision that Cumbernauld makes in the shape of jobs and services. The Government are proposing a totally artificial authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) pointed out all the problems associated with the creation of a North Lanarkshire authority. He was right to do that and I will not rehearse the arguments that he advanced.
There is no doubt that the correct authority for my area is East Dunbartonshire. It would more properly be termed Lennox. If the Government were doing the right thing by local government and determining the right structure of local government for the purpose of providing services, that is the authority that would be created, because it would return to a situation that developed over a very long period. That was the right structure for local government.
The Government are gerrymandering for a purpose that now escapes us. They cannot return councillors, no matter what the situation might be. It is clear that the Government cannot, and will not be able to, return Members of Parliament. As I said at the outset, the Government are an authoritarian Government who have lost authority in Scotland. They have no right to be doing what they are doing.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) ended up by saying that the charge against the Government that we were gerrymandering was wholly inaccurate. However, I may have misinterpreted him.
I thought that the arguments of the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) were a little misplaced. She accused me of gerrymandering in the new East Renfrewshire authority. She argued that the Government should take the five wards of Barrhead and Nielston out of East Renfrewshire authority. Of those five wards, two are currently Conservative marginals and three are Labour. How they can involve a charge of gerrymandering beggars belief.

Mr. Graham: Why is the Minister such a big feartie that he does not want to talk about the referendum which was held in his own constituency and showed overwhelmingly that the people of Barrhead and Nielston want to stay in Renfrew district?

Mr. Stewart: I replied to that point in Committee. I find it astonishing that it is the Labour party's official position that the East Renfrewshire authority should be smaller than that proposed by the Government.
A number of serious points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during these debates. The slightly barbed congratulations from the hon. Member for Paisley, North were reflected by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
9.45 pm
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), raised perhaps one of the key questions: why is there a difference between our conclusions with regard to Ayrshire

and the Central region on the one hand and Fife on the other hand. The hon. Gentleman made a strong case for an Ayrshire authority, as he did in Committee.
I shall summarise the arguments by saying that with regard to Fife, there is a combination of the historic identity and an existing authority which clearly has support. There is no clear alternative to a single-tier Fife authority which commands general support. Of course, there are alternatives. That is perhaps the key difference between our treatment of Fife and our treatment of Central and Ayrshire. But, in saying that, I must emphasise—

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I shall finish this point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
That is no criticism of Central region; nor is it a criticism of the case that has been put forward for a single-tier Ayrshire. That case has been put forward by perfectly reasonable people on a non-partisan basis. But on balance, we concluded—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) suggested—that there is substantial support for the three-authority option for Ayrshire.

Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State said that there was popular support for the retention of Fife regional council as it exists. If he looks at the situation in Tayside, he will see that there is popular support for the retention of Tayside regional council as it exists. Four out of five voters who voted in the Tayside regional council elections voted for parties that are committed to retaining the regional councils as they exist.

Mr. Stewart: I am not saying that there is some sort of perfect answer to the questions. There is no perfect answer; there is the best possible answer. There is substantial support for the City of Dundee authority.

Mr. O'Neill: Can the Secretary of State tell us what rationale he applied to the problem with regard to the resource base? There is some anxiety that the Clackmannan authority will have a resource base that is too narrow. Can he make it clear why he thinks that the resource base will be broad enough to carry out the functions that a pragmatic authority—by his own definition —such as Clackmannan will be able to do?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Give us an answer.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will get an answer. We had to consider that point carefully with regard to the alternative, essentially, of the single-tier Central council option. We were convinced by the case put by the Clackmannan district council and the discussions that we had about how it would run a single-tier authority. The district council emphasised—the hon. Member for Clackmannan will know the document perhaps better than I do—the enabling authority role which it defined as partnership with other authorities and the voluntary and private sectors. Eventually, we decided that that was a convincing case.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has been consistently courteous and kind in saying that the arguments put forward have been powerful. I must say, with due respect, that I do not find his arguments very powerful in relation to Central, Fife and Ayrshire. May I offer one alternative: that in Ayrshire and Central, there are two existing


authorities—Kyle and Carrick and Stirling—which are Tory-controlled, and there are two Tory Members who have been leaning on him? In Fife, thank goodness, there are no Tory authorities; nor are there any Tory Members. The Minister has just merely satisfied the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and their acolytes in Stirling and in Kyle and Carrick.

Mr. Stewart: I do not accept that. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have been leaning on me in relation to local government boundaries, and quite right, too.
May I turn, however, to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? As he knows, I met a delegation from Banff and Buchan and there is substantial local support for a Banff and Buchan council. I accept that the case that the hon. Member put forward is tenable, and it is perfectly possible and conceivable that Banff and Buchan could be a single-tier council.
However, we reached a balanced judgment to continue with the Aberdeenshire option, with a new authority which would be strong, effective and efficient, which would be able to deliver the full range of local authority services and which would not be overshadowed by its city neighbour. However, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will no doubt wish to continue to pursue his case in another place.
While we have decided to go ahead with the Aberdeenshire option, I would not wish it to be perceived that the Banff and Buchan option was not fully and carefully considered by the Government.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister has set out his conclusions, but I will not be able to pursue the matter personally in another place unless something dramatic happens. [Laughter.] I think that I have burned my boats in that direction.
In Committee, the Minister was generous enough to recognise the force of the public opinion arguments in favour of Banff and Buchan. Will he acknowledge the strength of the financial case that was put to him after the meeting which he has described?

Mr. Stewart: A carefully considered financial case was put to the Government. However, on balance, we concluded that the case for a large Aberdeenshire authority, with a population of about 220,000—a strong, effective and efficient authority—was preferred as our option for the future.
I turn briefly to the speeches that have been made in relation to Lanarkshire by the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). The last is a doughty campaigner for his area, while, as he said, he does not accept the basis of the reform proposals. Those hon. Members will know that other hon. Members from Lanarkshire constituencies have also been to see me, and they have suggested that there is considerable support for the south Lanarkshire option.
I accept that hon. Members have highlighted problems in relation to north Lanarkshire. With some reluctance, I must agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South that a consensus has simply not emerged on the alternative proposals for the area. We conclude, therefore, that it would be sensible for the proposals to continue as Government policy and we recommend them to the House.
Hon. Members generally criticised the Bill's effect on local democracy. I hope that the House will accept that in Committee and on Report the Government have been extremely flexible. Again and again, we have responded to all-party campaigns that have advocated change to the original boundaries. That has been right and proper. The boundaries proposed in the Bill have been improved substantially by consideration in this House and I commend them, but I must recommend that the House votes against new clauses 2 and
3.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 3

COST OF RE-ORGANISATION

'.—(1) The Treasury shall undertake a review and publish a report on the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the provisions of this Act; and the report shall be laid before Parliament no later than 6th April 1995.'.—[Mr. McLeish]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 282.

Division No. 241]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Austin-Walker, John
Davidson, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, Andrew F.
Donohoe, Brian H.


Benton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Ms Angela


Berry, Roger
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Etherington, Bill


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Mike


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hanson, David


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harvey, Nick






Henderson, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rendel, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Macdonald, Calum
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Stevenson, George


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


MacShane, Denis
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michael, Alun
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Watson, Mike


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Welsh, Andrew


Milburn, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wilson, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri
Winnick, David


Morley, Elliot
Wise, Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wright, Dr Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Jim Dowd and


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Mr. Alan Meale.


O'Brien, William (Normanton)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arbuthnot, James





Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, Sir George


Body, Sir Richard
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Elletson, Harold
Legg, Barry


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David






Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sackville, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I witnessed an incident—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am trying to deal with a point of order. I cannot do so unless I can hear it. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please, and will those beyond the bar stop their discussions?

Mr. Wilson: I witnessed an incident in the Division Lobby after you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had called for the doors to be closed. A doorkeeper was wrongly treated by an hon. Member, resulting in a slight injury to his hand. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not the numbers that I am worried about, but it is disgraceful that a servant of this House should be treated with such arrogance by a Member of the House. Will you make inquiries and report on it tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall have the incident investigated.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask for guidance on a matter of procedure? Starred amendments Nos. 302 and 303 appeared on the amendment paper, relating to the royal borough of South Queensferry. Technically, what happens to starred amendments? Do they come back in another place, or are they covered by the procedures that we have just gone through?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Speaker will consider that matter tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That—

(1) at the sitting on Thursday 19th May, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

(a) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made;
(b) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Sir John Cope relating to the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made; and
(c) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary MacGregor relating to the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994 and the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 not later than Ten o'clock;

(2) at the sitting on Monday 23rd May, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Third Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Suckler Cow Premium

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Sir Peter Emery: It is unusual for me raise a constituency case on the Floor of the House. Such matters are best sorted out in correspondence or by negotiations between the parties. It is only when other methods have apparently been exhausted that I take the step of carrying the matter forward in an Adjournment debate. This is such a case. Initially, it was taken up by the National Farmers Union in a number of approaches to local officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When that brought no results, not surprisingly, my constituent approached me to see whether I could assist him.
The case put to me and the refusal of MAFF to do anything to rectify a matter arising from the error incensed me because I thought that an injustice had been suffered by my constituent. Having corresponded with the Ministry, which, after further officials had been to see my constituent, culminated in two letters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am left with no course other than to bring the matter before the House.
Mr. E. J. Purchase farms at Woodhead farm, Branscombe. Anyone who knows this part of Devon will understand how difficult it is to work the land, with the combes and the valleys of a very hilly countryside. Thus, to begin with, Mr. Purchase's efforts are worthy of all support. He and his father before him have had a suckler herd of more than 50 cows on his farm since 1953.
Over the past few years Mr. Purchase has submitted his claim for the suckler cow premium. He has done so himself on the form provided by the Ministry. He understands the working of the system. From 1988 until 1992 the application had to be submitted by 31 January of the next year. To Mr. Purchase nothing seemed amiss. He received his form SCP 1 1991/92 at the end of September or the beginning of October. I have sent a copy to the Ministry. The form states clearly that the closing date for the receipt of the application is 31 January 1993. There is no doubt about it: it is in print.
Mr. Purchase did not know of a change that was known to MAFF before the form was sent out. MAFF had moved the goal posts. It had changed the date without altering the rule book or the form and, to make matters worse, without amending the explanatory notes. This is not in dispute, and I hope that the Minister will not attempt to dispute it. It is admitted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a letter dated 10 February. The Ministry attached a corrigendum—a notice of alteration of date—not to the form SCP 1 but to the explanatory notes.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, for whom I have great respect, to accept that Mr. Purchase is as honest as the day is long. He tells me that he has never seen the corrigendum, nor does he recall having received the notes for guidance. However, being the sort of man that he is, he will not swear that they were not in the envelope. All he can say is that he has not seen them, and he thinks it very possible that he received none of them. He holds that he had no knowledge of the change of date.
I want to put a simple question to the Minister. This man has normally submitted a request for premium payment. He did not have to look at the notes at this occasion as he had done the same thing for years and years. The money is

important to him. The previous year the figure was more than £2,500, and, at a rate of more than £59 per suckling cow, the amount in question would have been about £2,900. If Mr. Purchase had known about the altered date, would not he have ensured that his form was submitted in time? As the money is important, of course he would. Would a sensible farmer knowingly flout the due date? Of course not. This is even more obvious from the fact that, without the suckler cow premium payment, Mr. Purchase would not receive the suckler cow premium quota allocation that is essential if he is to receive any premium payments in the future. This makes it even more important that he meet the Ministry's requirements.
It has been suggested to me in letters from the Ministry that my constituent might apply under the suckler cow premium quota scheme for the allocation of quota. But this is no answer; nor would it provide any assurance that he would obtain the level of quota to which he would have been entitled if he had submitted the forms and they had been accepted.
Lastly, I must point out to my hon. Friend that I am not suggesting that we should set an entirely new precedent. It is no use him saying that the EC regulations do not really allow us to alter the dates, because he has done so, and so has the Ministry.
In Wessex and the North-East region, late applications from farmers were honoured because the Minister accepted that the corrigendum "was not clearly visible": that is an exact quotation from a letter from her on 10 February. It was not visible to Mr. Purchase; he did not see it, he did not know it and, what is more, MAFF cannot swear either that the explanatory notes were sent to Mr. Purchase in the envelope—they might well have been left out—or, if they were, it cannot say absolutely that the corrigendum might not accidentally have been knocked off before the rules were dispatched.
In those circumstances, only two facts are absolute, and they are quite clear. Mr. Purchase submitted the claim form meeting absolutely the date for receipt of that form on the form itself. In a court of law there would be no doubt that he would have won from there onwards.
I believe—and I must ask the House to believe—that Mr. Purchase has never seen the corrigendum. That the alteration was mentioned in the farming press is surely no defence for the Government. I read the farming press fairly regularly, and I did not realise that the dates for submission of claims had been altered, and, if I did not, I do not see why my constituent necessarily should have done.
The conclusion is that Mr. Purchase is suffering an injustice. The Government cannot be in the right and therefore, whether by an ad hoc payment or by whatever means the Government wish to make or take, Mr. Purchase must have his position restored. He must be paid his premium; he must have his suckler cow quota granted as of right rather than by the premium quota scheme unless the Minister will guarantee that the premium quota allocation for which Mr. Purchase has applied, as he is a sensible man, is at the level for which he should have qualified.
I cannot believe that my Government and the Minister can do other than correct the matter.It would be indeed scandalous not to do so.I have confidence in the fairness of my hon.Friend and that he will ensure that this quite obvious injustice is rectified.

Mr. Paul Tyler: With the consent of the right hon.Member for Honiton (Sir P.Emery), I intervene briefly to support his case, not just on behalf of his constituent, but, as I understand it, on behalf of a number of similar cases.They may not be precisely identical, and perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there are a number of cases that precisely equate to the case that the right hon. Gentleman has brought before the House.
There is an important point of principle here. There have been far too many cases in recent months and years of comparatively small administrative changes or inaccuracies by the Ministry which have resulted in major financial disadvantage to the farming community because there were changes of dates, changes of circumstances, changes in criteria or changes in the rules.
It seems that nobody in the Ministry is prepared or permitted to use their discretion or their common sense. That would appear to be the case even at the top of the Department with the Minister herself. Nobody seems to be in a position to take the benefit of the doubt and apply it to the constituent, the individual farmer. That seems to be a wholly regrettable situation that does no credit to the administration of complex procedures. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to explain whether that is because of some internal Ministry regulation, rule of conduct or decision, or whether it is because of some regulation imposed from Brussels by the European Union.
There seems to be a strong case for some form of tribunal, some appeal procedure, or some arrangement by which the Minister can act as arbiter when it is a question of giving the benefit of the doubt. If that system is not in place already—I hope that there is some such system—I am convinced that it will be necessary in the next few weeks if, as seems only too likely, the discrepancies, mistakes and alterations made by the Ministry on its integrated administration and control system documentation cause a great many other forms to arrive late and major financial disadvantage to farmers as a result.
I warmly support the initiative of the right hon. Member for Honiton. I believe that, not just in the south-west of Britain, but in other parts of the country, there will be similar concerns. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet them this evening.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation his great kindness in giving me notice of the subjects that he wanted to cover. It has enabled me to target my investigations precisely on the matter that he has rightly drawn to the attention of the House this evening.
At the beginning of the debate I was pleased to seethe hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in his place as I thought that he was at least showing an interest in west country farming matters. I was less pleased when I heard what he had to say. It would do him no harm to look at some of the reasons why Community-based schemes are tightly drawn. They are fashioned in that mode to avoid fraud. I am sure that, as someone who supports and takes a keen interest in European matters, he will understand that

under such circumstances the element of discretion in schemes inevitably has to be limited. If it were not, we, the Community, and everyone else could rightly be criticised for being unable to account for what are, in sum, large amounts of money.
The hon. Gentleman was less than charitable in some of his comments about the way in which the schemes are administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its regional offices. The majority of forms are filled in correctly by farmers and processed correctly, as we shall see in relation to the integrated administration and control system.
I wish to turn to the substance of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. He has drawn our attention to the great importance that his constituent, Mr. Purchase, attaches to the matter. Suckler cow premium payments are important and I take careful note of my right hon. Friend's points on finance and Mr. Purchase's future entitlement to quota. I shall return to that issue at the conclusion of my remarks.
My right hon. Friend has already described the background to the case. At the heart of it was the question whether his constituent, Mr. Purchase, was notified of the change in the closing date of the 1992 suckler cow premium scheme. One of the many changes to the suckler cow scheme resulting from common agricultural policy reform was that the closing date of the scheme had to be in the calendar year when applications were made, so we brought forward the closing date of the 1992 scheme from 31 January 1993 to 15 December 1992.
In order to leave farmers in no doubt about that change, we prepared a corrigendum slip to be attached to and sent out with the Ministry's claim forms and explanatory notes for the 1992 scheme. We used a corrigendum to avoid any delays to the opening of the scheme in 1992. There would have been delays if the forms had been reprinted. The corrigendum alerted potential claimants to the fact that the closing date was now 15 December 1992, not 31 January 1993. In the south-west region, the corrigendum was stapled to the front of the explanatory notes dispatched by my Department. It was a brightly coloured, A4-sized piece of paper that looked something like the document that I have in my hand.
The explanatory notes, with corrigendum and claim form, were dispatched to all producers with an interest. The mailing list for the notes and forms was based on our computer records. I have verified with our regional director, who was in my office this afternoon, that that list would have included those farmers who, like Mr. Purchase, had previously claimed suckler cow premium. The literature was dispatched in June or at the latest early July —not September, as my right hon. Friend mentioned.
As well as issuing the corrigendum, the Ministry put out press notices during 1992 giving the new closing date. They were issued at both national and regional level. The new closing date was reported in the farming press. It was also—I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this—reported in the "NFU Journal" for its members in Devon and Cornwall, of which Mr. Purchase is one.
I should make it clear that we understand how important it is for farmers to be aware of closing dates. We also endeavour to send claim forms and explanatory leaflets to those who claimed under a particular scheme the year


before. But at the end of the day it is up to farmers to decide whether they qualify for subsidies, and to send us correctly completed claim forms before the closing date.
In their remarks, my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned flexibility. I am afraid that the rules on closing dates form part of the European Community legislation on the suckler cow scheme and others. It means that we have little discretion to accept claims that are late. There are some cases from 1992, however, on which, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, we have been able to exercise that discretion, after the agreement of the European Commission. Those cases were in two of MAFF's nine regions, Wessex and the north-east, and in Northern Ireland.
There, in contrast to the position in the south-west region and to the case of my right hon. Friend's constituent, the corrigendum was put inside the literature rather than stapled to the front. Some farmers in those areas appear to have put the document aside on the basis that there was no indication on the front of the literature that the date had changed. But I reiterate that the farmers in those regions were in quite a different position from those in the south-west, such as Mr. Purchase.
As my right hon. Friend said, Mr. Purchase handed in his 1992 claim form at the Ministry's Exeter regional service centre in early January 1993. Although that was before the original closing date of 31 January 1993, it was well after the revised closing date of 15 December 1992. It was also after the final date of 31 December 1992, beyond which claims could not be accepted at all, even for payment at a reduced rate. My right hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister about Mr. Purchase's case in January 1994.
In that letter, to which my right hon. Friend adverted, my right hon. Friend the Minister summarised the course of events, which have been described to us this evening. My right hon. Friend described how Mr. Purchase's claim was rejected. My right hon. Friend also recorded that Mr. Purchase had said that he had never had any indication that the closing date had been altered. That was obviously a serious matter into which we needed to look carefully. My right hon. Friend the Minister asked the Ministry's regional director in the south-west to get in touch with Mr. Purchase urgently and to report back to her.
The regional director, Mr. Highman, and Mr. Purchase met on 15 February 1994. Mr. Highman reported back on the same day. It is not my normal practice to publish internal Ministry minutes, but because I think that it would be helpful to the House, I shall read relevant sections of Mr. Highman's minute of his meeting with Mr. Purchase.
Much of the conversation centred on establishing whether Mr. Purchase was able to produce his explanatory notes, which, had they not had the corrigendum attached, would have been without staple holes. After the debate, I will send my right hon. Friend a full copy of the document so that in no way can he think that I am quoting selectively. It says:
Mr. Purchase told me that when his 1992 suckler cow literature arrived he simply looked at the claim form, registered that, as in previous years, a 31 January deadline applied and then put the claim form away for future action during the second half of January. Subsequently, he visited his cousins who farm in north Devon and was told that the deadline had been changed. He promptly got in touch with my RSC and submitted his late claim on 11 January 1993. Later in the year he read about the concession that had been granted to those who had submitted late claims in the Bristol and Northallerton areas and so naturally

assumed that the same concession would apply in his case. He was therefore dismayed when our rejection letter of 12 July arrived.
I pressed Mr. Purchase to produce his copy of the 1992 explanatory notes or to explain what had happened to it. He could not produce the form and freely admitted that he could not recall seeing it. He told me that the suckler cow premium literature would have arrived at a time when he was having his house re-roofed. Accordingly, all his papers were boxed and put away during this period. Apart from firmly registering the suckler cow premium deadline and placing the claim form in his diary at an appropriate point for future action, he could not recall seeing any other documentation. Accordingly, when he was subsequently told of the change in date he was unable to find the explanatory notes and cannot therefore prove his case one way or the other.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend cannot prove that the notes were delivered. My constituent cannot prove that he did not throw them away with the envelope, but I do not think that the Government can prove that they were necessarily in the envelope. That is the difference: if they were not in the envelope, the date applies.

Mr. Jack: I shall try to deal with that point as I continue my speech, but I have checked with our regional director the precise process that had been involved in producing the batch of forms, together with the corrigendum. I am assured by the regional director that that was done in a batch operation, and that—as far as can be said—all forms went out with the corrigendum attached to them. That is why I attach particular importance to the location of the explanatory notes: clearly, if they were found without holes in them there would be a case. I shall come to that in a moment.
The minute concludes:
In the end I told Mr. Purchase that in the absence of the explanatory notes and given his honest admission that he may or may not have seen them, it would be difficult for the Minister to exercise discretion in his favour. We talked for a little longer and he clearly indicated that, given that over the years he had always conscientiously claimed for 50 or so suckler cows and was not therefore a 'Johnny-come-lately', he could not help but think that it would be harsh if MAFF could not be lenient in his favour. In a similar vein he argued that since so many others had been given the benefit of the doubt when they had said that they had not seen the corrigendum, he too should be believed when he said he had not seen it.
It seems to me that we will never be able to prove one way or the other whether or not Mr. Purchase ever received the explanatory notes with or without our corrigendum slip attached. To be fair he has not tried to suggest that we were at fault in this respect and accepts that whilst it is possible that we failed to send the notes or forgot to add the corrigendum slip, it is equally just as possible that, to use his own words, 'I might not have bothered to look further than the claim form which showed the date of 31 January which I expected to see. I suppose it could be a case of familiarity breeds contempt.'
I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that that quotation paints a picture of an honest man appealing to our better nature, but acknowledging that that there could have been error on both sides, including his. As I have said, I spoke to the regional director today; I am content that his report gives an accurate version of the interview.
The problem is that we have insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Purchase did not receive the corrigendum. We have actively sought such evidence from him: if, for example, he were able to produce a copy of his explanatory notes and there were no staple holes indicating that a corrigendum had been attached—as I told my right hon. Friend a moment ago—we would pay him. But, in his interview with the regional director, Mr. Purchase suggested that he might have received the corrigendum and


not taken any notice of it. In the light of that information, my right hon. Friend the Minister felt unable to reverse the earlier decision not to pay Mr. Purchase.
I appreciate that this may not be the answer that my right hon. Friend would prefer, but I should make it clear that if he or his constituent has any new evidence to offer my Department will be delighted to look at it. I should add that, after my right hon. Friend and his constituent have had an opportunity to reflect on what I have said tonight, I should like to invite him to a meeting with me—and with senior MAFF officials—to discuss the matter further. That is an open invitation.
I want to end on an optimistic note. My right hon. Friend himself mentioned that 1992 was also the reference year for suckler cow premium quotas. Because Mr. Purchase did not submit a valid 1992 claim, he did not receive an allocation when quotas were made last autumn. However, Mr. Purchase has applied to the national reserve for quota. Allocations from the reserve have not yet been finalised, but I am glad to say both that Mr. Purchase appears to be eligible and that there appears to be enough quota in the reserve for the category under which he applied. That means that, although my right hon. Friend's constituent will not have received the suckler cow premium for 1992, he should be able to receive it for 1993 and future years, up to the limit of his quota allocation.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the case and to the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for joining us in the Chamber tonight. It is always important that individual cases be examined in detail. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider kindly my remarks and will accept the invitation that I extended to him.

Mr. Tyler: Can the Minister say in how many cases over the whole of England suckler cow premium has, with the Minister's discretion, been allocated when the applications were not originally eligible?

Mr. Jack: If I am wrong, I will correct the Official Report, but to the best of my memory, in the two MAFF areas that I mentioned some 16,000 cases were amended, where a clear error on our part was observed and we sought to put it right straight away. In the south-west, there may have been five or six other cases where there was doubt. My remarks this evening focused entirely on a particular case.
When one considers the total number of applications, by far the greatest proportion are handled without any problems. In this case, many thousands of farmers were able to complete the form perfectly adequately and without any difficulty.
By that magic process of osmosis that occasionally affects Ministers at the Dispatch Box, I can say that the number of cases in which there was a problem was not as large as I said. In fact, there were some 500 cases. If there is any doubt, I shall write to the hon. Member for North Cornwall to clarify precisely the numbers involved.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Of course I accept his invitation. I thank him for meeting at least half my claim, but I shall return to say that the Government owe my constituent £2,900, and I shall fight like blazes to make certain that he gets that money.

Mr. Jack: I look forward to my right hon. Friend's continuing tenacity in the proper pursuit of his constituent's interest. I thank him again for raising the matter tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.